Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Alison Terrific piece. Thanks. Perhaps you would like to elaborate in comments on how you see the issues of corruption and politicization affecting the ability of the UN to be credible. That is a key issue I don't see addressed very well by many commentators.

Maybe, as here with Howard, trust and credibility don't actually matter much ... but I suspect that in both cases it is more like dry rot, eventually they take their toll...but it takes time.

Very thought-provoking essay. I think both the UN-bashers and the US-bashers tend to miss a point I think Alison Broinowski's article makes:
- the UN and the US need each other.

The Oil-for-Food scandal, though it has damaged the UN's credibility to some extent, is more significant for the damage it does to the credibility of permanent Security Council members such as France. French and Russian interests benefited from the Saddam Hussein kickbacks, suggesting their opposition to military action in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion was tainted by self-interest. This perspective mirrors the accusation that the US pushed the invasion of Iraq to enrich Halliburton.

Nobody comes out of it smelling very good.

The UN, despite its many failures (Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur) is still the least-worst forum for (at least attempting to) resolve international disputes and solve global problems.

But I think no-one has decided how powerful they want the UN to be, particularly as an arbiter of the use of force. For example, countries like France and Germany opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq because it was not authorised by the UN, but only a few years earlier they had supported the 1999 attacks against Serbia over its actions in Kosovo. Milosevic, like Saddam, was not threatening any other sovereign nation at the time. There was no Security Council resolution authorising use of force. Yet the Europeans felt the threat of genocide overruled national sovereignty and UN permission. French FM Villepin said the "threat of an imminent humanitarian disaster" allowed the exception in this case. German FM Fisher was also a strong proponent of the action, citing historical responsibility to prevent genocide.

Similarly, though the UNSC passed a number of Resolutions imposing sanctions on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (starting in 1999 and going through to 2005), I don't think there was ever a resolution authorising the removal by force of the Taliban. The overthrow of the Taliban happened mainly under the NATO banner, and NATO forces remain in Afghanistan to this day.

So, to me, the comparisons among Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq raise key questions about the legitimacy of UN-authorised action versus action undertaken by groups of nations such as the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, and NATO in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Does the cost of inaction in lives lost, while preserving international legitimacy, outweigh the costs of war (also in lives lost) outside UN authorisation? Not an easy question.

In Iraq, the option of leaving Saddam Hussein in power had a cost in human lives, just as the option of removing him did. (And no - I will not play the body count game - in either case it was a lot of innocent people.)

The genocidal situation in Sudan makes this question all the more urgent: should the world wait for the UN to act in Darfur?

Thank heavens for this diary where wonderful pieces like this can be found, what would we do without it. The thing everyone forgets about the UN is that we are the UN, every man, woman and child on earth is the United Nations of the world.

We say the UN as if it is a body disengaged from us, as if it is something different to a committee of human beings.

One analogy that I have used when teaching history and discussing the UN is it being a bit like the ying and the yang of synergy where the sum of the two parts are greater than the two parts on their own.

I see the UN a bit like that. When it works together and in complete unison it’s strength has the potential to do far more good than even if all of the nation members were to act doing the same but on their own. That’s the positive.

Unfortunately, the inverse law applies when the UN cannot reach agreement. It often seems then that the UN is as weak and as powerless as the weakest member nation. That, of course, is the negative.

Alison Broinowski is right, as Will Howard suggests; the US and the UN do need each other but what the UN does not need is a President and administration determined to undermine the UN in order make it subservient to America’s otherwise unilateralist whims.

Alison, a fine article.

You rightly referred to the illegal oil sales to US allies. However, it is a fairly common phenomenon that this is ignored and attention is focused on the oil for food program. Perhaps one can detect an agenda there.

To expand on the illegal sales issue there is this CNN Report.

And this report.

And this.

Will: well worth reading the chapter in Phillip Bobbit's The Shield of Achilles entitled "The Kitty Genovese Incident and the War in Bosnia." To quote from a review:

Kitty (Catherine) Genovese was murdered outside her home in Queens, New York, in 1964. No one responded to her screams, giving her murderer plenty of time to kill her. ... Bobbitt writes of a four-year study done by two psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latane, that refuted the common interpretation of public apathy as responsible for the passivity. Bystanders were distressed but felt too ill-equipped to respond, and there was, hypothesized the two psychologists, an insufficiency in assigning responsibility - a "diffusion of responsibility." Bobbitt describes the breakup of Yugoslavia, the war in Bosnia and, in Bosnia, the worst atrocities Europe had witnessed since the Holocaust. He writes of the dithering of the United Nations and by President Clinton. Members of the U.N. Security Council were introducing ambiguities into their debate, countering calls by people who wanted a more serious intervention in Bosnia for the sake of peace there. And Clinton was reluctant to act because he believed there was not public support for such a move.

Thankyou everyone for the feedback on the UN. If you would like to see the whole argument (give or take a few developments for the worse since we went to press) get THE THIRD TRY: CAN THE UN WORK?, which I wrote with US diplomat James Wilkinson and which is published this week by Scribe Publications.

Edward Teasdale: you say that “ Iraq was an enormous threat to world peace. It had invaded a sovereign state without provocation, used chemical weapons against its own people, fought a murderous war with Iran, lobbed missiles into Israel and funded suicide bombers. Saddam ran a evil totalitarian regime. Anything that supported this regime or profited from it was and evil act.”

If what you say is true you must agree that the US and Australia are also an “enormous threat to world peace.” Both countries have invaded a sovereign state without provocation (Iraq). The US helped supply war materials to Iraq for example; the Washington Post reported “The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
See: link here The US has lobbed missiles into numerous countries since the end of WW2 see: link here
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-

The United Nations is not perfect but it is the best we have. Super Powers come and go. The nations of the world need a forum to develop global strategies to combat global threats, such as global warming, global terrorism, nuclear disarmament, bird flu pandemics, rogue nations that invade countries without provocation, and to control the threat of super powers that wish to dominate the globe.
Australia should be supporting the United Nations and working towards improving the systems developed by the United Nations rather than becoming the deputy sheriff of a superpower that is happy to pursue world domination at whatever cost.

How can anyone assert that democracy is "much hyped" and yet still be taken seriously? Broinowski in her preoccupation with a class based UN seems to have forgotten that over half of the UNGA resolutions are anti-Israel. Given the human rights record of many of the non-democratic member states, this record alone illustrates how much the forum has been hijacked and diverted from all of the other lovely goals that Broinowski espouses. Until member states embrace the need to eradicate anti-Semitism its very existence is poisoned at the roots.

How can human rights be determined by member states that do not respect their own people? We have warlords having the same vote at the GA as western democracies. This is precisely why it is necessary for the likes of Broinowski to denigrate democratic states: how else could you possibly justify egalitarianism between free states and totalitarian regimes?

Minimising the Oil for Food scandal is exactly what Broinowski must also do to preserve the notion of UN nobility. The fact is Iraq was an enormous threat to world peace. It had invaded a sovereign state without provocation, used chemical weapons against its own people, fought a murderous war with Iran, lobbed missiles into Israel and funded suicide bombers. Saddam ran a evil totalitarian regime. Anything that supported this regime or profited from it was and evil act. The fact that the UN could be facilitating this regime is completely contrary to its fundamental mandate. Dollars aside, this is why the actions of UN officials were so scandalous and why it was necessary to investigate.

Portraying the US as being rejectionist is to completely and perhaps wilfully misunderstand what was inherent in the ICC and the Kyoto principles. With the former, it was self evident that when Anan referred Israel to the ICC for its separation barrier, they had ignored their own jurisdiction for political purposes. The track record of the judges showed them to be a who’s who of political infamy. Is it any wonder that the US would seek to indemnify itself from the political manipulation inherent in the constitution of the UNGA who could refer cases to the ICC? Kyoto too has proven to be both ineffective and a financial disaster. One need only look at the NZ experience to appreciate that. Again it was merely an exercise in extorting money from developed to developing countries. There is no reason why UN treaties should be seen as the ultimate panacea for environmental remedy. They simply lack the track record to justify such a claim.

The UN has a terrible track record in almost every respect. The US is wise to undermine it at every step. From everything including Anan's failures in Rwanda through to its sexual abusing peace keepers, it is an abject failure.

Broinowski's work is derivative socialist drivel borne out of a neo-Marxist romanticism of developing despotic regimes and contempt for the moral authority wielded by freedom-loving states.

What a good article. Finally, someone has the intestinal fortitude to spell out the facts and filter through the US neo-con right wing international relations propaganda and expose it for what they are - lies!

OK, J F Beck, it's hyperbole. A rhetorical device that should be used with care. Sometimes people take it literally, often to dismiss the substantive argument that provoked the hyperbole.

Not far off the mark though. Particularly in Howard's case, when you consider that he represents the ALP as a terrorist organisation bent on destroying Australian Civilisation with higher interest rates.

How is anyone meant to take Ms Broinowski seriously when she writes Bush and Howard "rely on the threat of terrorism to justify everything they do"? Everything?

It isn't at all obvious Ms Borinowski is attempting to generate some controversy in the hope of boosting book sales, now is it?

Alison Broinowski I too would like you know how much I appreciate this piece and your decision to have it published here. I sure would like to read more and will get myself a copy of The Third Try: can the UN work?. I hope it can.

John Pratt, attacking the US as both you and Broinowski do does not provide a defence of the legitimate criticisms of the UN. It is mere obfuscation. Worse still it is a distraction against the millions of people around the world who have no rights at all. We are according respect to the people who 'represent' these voiceless millions (if not billions). To present a disclaimer as Broinowski did that the US government does not represent all Americans is particularly laughable when you consider that the majority of member states actually represent no one but the tyrannical leaders who commissioned them.

When you compare the bucketing Bush received to New Orleans as compared to Anan with a totally preventable genocide of hundred of thousands you see a glaring hypocrisy.

We are mature enough to say that we do not support things because they are the "best we have." The UN is an intolerable base of racism, cronyism and legitimacy for the worst murderous regimes in the world. How leftists could support them at the expense of the members of those regimes is appalling.

Edward Teasdale: Human rights are recognized as fundamental by the United Nations and, as such, feature prominently in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations: "... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..”. The Organization's prominent role in this area is carried out by a number of human rights bodies some of which date back to the very foundation of the United Nations. See here: link here The supporters of the UN see it at the best hope for gaining basic human rights for the billions of people around the world who currently have none. Shooting and bombing is not the best way to achieve human rights. The US becomes a target because it is the country most likely to use war as a tool to achieve its aims. If the last 60 years have proved anything it is that war achieves nothing but death and destruction.
Nations must come together to form global rules the enshrine human rights. The only game in town is the United Nations. There is no other choice. We must improve and build our relations with other nations or we will be have never ending war.

This week is Anti-Poverty week. link here About 2 billion people around the world have incomes of less than US $2 per day.
About 2 billion people do not have basic sanitation.
About one-fifth of all adults are illiterate.
In some African countires, life expectancy is less than 45 years old.

Trade protection by wealthy countries costs many poor coountries more than they receive in oveseas aid. Australia's benchmark has fallen to about one-third of the agreed world bench mark.

And my point is: The Australian and US governments contribute to that situation by undermining the stability of the UN, thus crippling its endeavours to address basic problems like poverty...here in Australia and the US.

Human society must address the 3000+ year misuse of their most consequential discovery thus far - Economics. Until then, creating the 'One World Government' is far too dangerous.
Who will control the UN? Which building will you protest outside of in your city when the 'One World government' acts against you?

Look at the subterfuge already going on
UN Has acquired land through the usual Central Bank Mechanism "Debt-for-Asset" exchange thanks to "The Greening of the Reds"...
"
Not long ago in Insider Report I cited two such deals that deserve a mention. One was a $9-million Ecuador foreign-debt exchange for such priority targets as part of the Ecuadorian Andes and Galapagos National Park. The World Wildlife Fund and Nature Conservancy bought this debt for twelve cents on the dollar. Earlier that same month, the ubiquitous Nature Conservancy announced a debt-swap deal with the Bank of America for a foreclosed property in California called the Dye Creek Ranch/Preserve. It includes 40,000 acres of redwoods and an option on another 2,900 acres.

In just the eleven western states of the U.S., wilderness areas now account for 86,474,870 acres. Federal agencies have recommended another 20,256,780 acres for wilderness designation. And further "studies" for possible inclusion would add up to 133,653,459 more acres. In countries like Brazil and Australia, the lockup numbers are not measured in acres, but in square miles.
"
extracts from Larry Abram's book, THE GREENING

Edward Teasdale, "What are the risks of strengthening a state that is actively engaged in illicit drug selling, multinational terrorism and has a million strong army under the control of a completely mad dictator?"

Are you referring to the US?

Jenny Stirling does not seem to appreciate that it is member states who are keeping their population's ignorant and impoverished, despite efforts of the US. This is a paradox of some of the oil-rich nations: high per capita income, low education and high infant mortality. Do you think the UNGA would ever move against Saudi Arabia?

Why is it that all of the leftist lunatics would protest 'globalisation' when removing trade barriers is exactly what is on the agenda? Removing barriers is desirable, but will not cure all of the ills that you mention. Some developing countries would be certainly worse off.

The UN is inherently unstable by its lunatic tyrannical member states. You cannot make stability by ignoring the fact that Stalinist states such as North Korea have the same status at the UNGA as free states such as Australia, Japan or the US. It is utterly absurd. What are the risks of strengthening a state that is actively engaged in illicit drug selling, multinational terrorism and has a million strong army under the control of a completely mad dictator? In the meantime, the North Koreans starve because the UN are too gutless to get rid of him. This situation is emblematic of what is happening.

Quentin Harris' comments have slipped beneath the radar. They are definitely conspiratorial "one world government" spooky stuff and would be best kept inside the halls of the Seventh Day Adventists.

Bob Wall, one can only wonder about how any meaningful debate can occur when you would seriously compare the leader of a Stalinist state with a democratically elected leader of a Western state. Come to think of it, why have I never ever read any dissent from you about any tyrannical non Western leaders?

Your comments are shallow and will never exonerate the UN.

Edward Teasdale, In my original post on this thread I post links that substantiated and expanded on Dr Bronowski's point about the OFFP and illicit oil smuggling and US involvement in the latter.

That you would later post comments attacking Dr Broinowski and showing no recognition of the evidence provided was illustrative of your lack of interest in a meaningful debate and proof of my comments made in the original post.

Bob Wall, the 'evidence' that Dr Broinowski presented was both in content and process. I have commented on both and so your comments that I do not wish to engage in a meaningful debate are perplexing.

I think that your misplaced chivalry for Dr Broinowski is indemnifying her arguments from what I have asserted and so far has not been addressed by anyone here, least of which Dr Broinowski herself.

There remains a case to answer as to why the UN, a hotbed of anti-Semitism, should be supported as a pseudo-egalitarian power base for despotic countries to undermine free states. The UN is an expensive joke that ceased to be funny in the early 50s (or maybe earlier).

We should turn off the lights, walk out of the building and join an expanded alliance with all freedom loving countries.

Edward Teasdale, an expanded alliance? Sounds like the coalition of the willing. I would rather a union of nations, inclusive of all nations, warts and all. Rather than a coalition who think all nations should be made a mirror image of the only superpower. World government in the hands of a superpower and multinationals. A very fascist vision?

Edward Teasdale, part of my previous post went missing.

What I had said in that part was that I had provided links to articles in my original post which substantiated and expanded the points made by Dr Broinowski about the OFFP as opposed to the illicit oil smuggling and the US involvement in the latter.

Thus for you to not display any recognition of that evidence when commenting later to me was indicative of you, from your very first post, displaying a lack of interest in an honest, objective and, given the tone you have taken towards Dr Broinowski, civil debate.

I repost comments I made originally:

'However, it is a fairly common phenomenon that this is ignored and attention is focused on the oil for food program. Perhaps one can detect an agenda there.'

I believe you have proven my point.

To what is Dr Broinowski referring to when she writes, "The US - and Australia - have adopted a narrow, reactionary concept of 'popular sovereignty.' In terms of its adherence to a 17th-century, absolutist conception of sovereignty, the US ranks with Burma, China and Iran - and increasingly Australia."?

I fear that she can only be referring to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.

If so, she has exposed a pretty serious deficiency in her understanding of the conceptual foundations of the United Nations Charter as well as a very sad ignorance about the difference between the concept of "sovereignty" encapsulated in the Treaty of Westphalia and the 18th century concept of "popular sovereignty".

To briefly enlighten her, the principle of sovereignty established in the Treaty of Westphalia was that the signatories of the treaty recognised for each of the signatory states that the ruler of each state had a right to order the affairs of the state as they saw fit, and that the other signatories would not use the internal policies of the state as a cause for war or interference. The sovereignty attached to the rulers of the states, who were just about all, at the time, in various degrees absolute monarchs. Most definitely it was not popular sovereignty.

‘Popular sovereignty’ is an 18th century construct (with antecedents in the Levellers of 17th century England) based upon what was at the time the revolutionary premise that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”. It is, of course, the foundation of democracy, a form of government which Dr Broinowski describes as "much hyped but deficient". The United States and Australia are in favour of it. Dr Broinowski seems to have her doubts, although her understanding of the very meaning of the concept is shaky when she groups the United States and Australia with China and Burma as not having popular sovereignty. Still, I hope she can suggest an alternative. Perhaps theocracy as per Iran is the go, or military dictatorship, a la Libya, or perhaps we should look to North Korea, the only country to be literally ruled by the dead (for yes, its Eternal President even now is the Beloved and Respected Leader Kim Il Sung, who passed from this mortal coil in 1994) to give us inspiration.

The principle of sovereignty of the Treaty of Westphalia became the keystone of European diplomacy for the next 350 years and is the cornerstone of the UN Charter. Despite Dr Broinowski’s mischaracterisation of the United Nations as a fourth tier of government, it is not that and was never intended by its founders to be that. In accordance with Westphalia principles its members are individual sovereign states, not their peoples (UNC Article 2, Principle 1).

It does not empower the United Nations to interfere in the internal affairs of nations (UNC Article 2, Principle 7). It does not create a legislative body in the General Assembly, which only has powers to make recommendations (refer UNC Chapter 4) or the Security Council (refer UNC Chapter 5) - with an exception for the UNSC in respect of binding resolutions on matters affecting international peace and security (UNC Chapter 5).

Under the UN Charter each member has one vote (UNC Article18). This is as it should be in accordance with the concept of sovereignty as understood under the Treaty of Westphalia but, of course, has nothing to do with the concept of popular sovereignty. Its practical effect is that Equatorial Guinea, an African country under the control of a particularly vile dictator who, despite his country’s vast oil wealth compared to its small population (about 530,000) manages to keep the vast majority of his people in dire poverty, has the same voting rights as India, a vibrant democracy with a population of over a billion people. The United Nations has got nothing to do with democracy and in its General Assembly the minions of the foulest of dictators stand equal with the representatives of democratic nations. And that’s the way they want it.

When, in his folly, George Bush decided to remove the vilest of dictators, Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, oppressor of the Shiites, murderer of the Kurds, despoiler of the Marsh Arabs and aggressor against Iran and Kuwait, the United Nations, true to its Westphalian principles rallied around him, including to their great shame, the European democracies of France and Germany. Had they had their way then, consistent with the Westphalian concept of sovereignty, Saddam would have been quite within his rights to continue murdering and oppressing his population, and ignoring UN Resolutions, to his heart’s content. As are dictators of Sudan as I write this.

Dr Broinowski makes much of the Millenium Development Goals. She neglects to mention that poor countries would be a long way closer to achieving those goals for their populations if their governments had not adopted insane self-impoverishing social and economic policies over the last forty years which were guaranteed to turn those countries into basket cases. Still they’re not entirely to blame for that. They had UN experts advising them.

The evidence of the truth of this lies with China which, since it adopted rational economic policies in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping, and with no advice from UN “experts” (but plenty from people who knew what they were talking about) has had over 9% annual economic growth and has lifted more than 200 million of its people out of absolute poverty.

In suggesting reasons for the alleged non-commitment of rich countries to the MDGs Dr Broinowski lists:

“The rich members still don't see poverty, debt, disease, illiteracy and environmental damage as security threats to them too. Or:
• They aren't moved enough to want to help the poor world
• They don't believe that aid will achieve change
• They will give tied aid but not real debt relief or trade liberalisation
• They don't trust the UN to set the goals and deliver the aid
• They don't want to give the UN the capacity to effect change
• They don't really want change that would even the balance between rich and poor.”

Of the above probably dot points 2 and 4 hit the mark. The rich countries have seen third world dictatorships with insane economic policies, and UN expert advice, impoverish their own people and blow billions of dollars in aid feathering the nests of the privileged coterie of the dictators and the international aid “experts” who advise them for too long and they simply have no desire to keep that gravy train running any longer.

In May this year John Pilger, commenting on a World Bank report, wrote scathingly on the scam that the international aid business in Cambodia is. Pilger wrote of Cambodia:

“More than 740 foreigner advisers and experts earn nearly as much as 160,000 Cambodian civil servants, who get as little as 25 dollars a month. In many ministries, the pay of foreign advisers exceeds the entire annual budget.”

There is one proposal by Dr Broinowski that I heartily endorse; relocating the UN headquarters out of the US. Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with a bracing elevation of 2820 metres, is an ideal city to relocate to, although Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh has its charms and Lagos in sunny Nigeria could do with the money since the Nigerian capital was moved to Abuja. My choice, though, would be Phnom Penh because then the underpaid Cambodian civil servants could turn their hand to the restaurant industry and make a nice little living off the tips from the UN bureaucrats enjoying their hospitality. That alone would probably give employment to 160,000 of them. A win-win for everyone.

Edward Teasdale, you are confusing the ICC & the ICJ. The legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory advisory opinion was delivered by the ICJ, not the ICC.

Kofi Annan did refer the matter to the Court, in his capacity as secretary. He was simply passing on a request from the UNGA. Don't hold that against him.

It isn't self-evident to me that the ICJ, "ignored their own jurisdiction for political purposes". Paras 14-17 & 24-42 of the opinion deal with jurisdiction. The court determined 15-0 (including Judge Buergenthal from the USA) that it had jurisdiction. What is wrong with their reasoning?

The court decided 14-1 to exercise its jurisdiction (Judge Buergenthal dissenting). The substantive issue was put as five questions, four of which were decided 14-1, and one 13-2. Judge Buergenthal dissented on all, and Judge Kooijmans (Netherlands) on one.

In Judge Buergenthal's separate opinion he wrote: "My negative votes... should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the opinion with which I agree." He considered there was not emough factual evidence before the Court to decide the issues. The additional evidence he sought might have been provided by Israel, but was not.

Can you justify your claim that the "track record of the judges showed them to be a who’s who of political infamy"? The judges' biographies don't seem very infamous - in fact more the reverse (there has been one change, but the rest are there). But they most likely wrote them themselves. They seem to spend a lot of time at Ivy League and/or Oxbridge universities, but that is probably not technically infamous. Let's see your evidence of "infamy".

On the USA's rejectionism (Broinowski's list was much longer than just ICC and Kyoto), it's a matter, as it so often is, of (misguided) self-interest. That infects us all. In the American's case, they also have to deal with American exceptionalism (disputed, so see the talk page) which conflates self-interest with everyone's interests. A small but prosperous country like us can, on a good day, see our self-interest in the common interest. It's a bit harder for the leader of the free world, but I'm sure they can do it.

Yes Edward Teasdale, hypocrisy knows no bounds. So when the USA and Australia get their knickers in a knot because the UN holds them accountable for poverty, racial discrimination and general human rights abuses within their own back yards, it is understandable that they too should throw a dummy spit like Downer did in 1998.

Mind you, they played their hand a little differently the next time they came up for review. Very quiet and demure.

As for globalisation promoting free trade and lower tarriff barriers... well as Doug Anthony, the former deputy PM and leader of the National Party 1984 once said, "there's no such thing as a level playing field".

When Australia tried to get our lamb into the lucrative US market after the Iraq war, we didn't stand a chance against the US farm lobby. Why? Well there was an election in the offing. And of course we have to wait how many years to sell our beef to the USA in the illustrious Free Trade Agreement of 2004? And that would be why many 3rd world countries are breaking their necks not to sign the latest GATT treaty.

Edward Teasdale define and list "freedom loving countries."

And don't bother about labelling people here either. Apologists for the Right like yourself conveniently forget the covert support the US gave for many years to tyrannical regimes in places like Chile, Argentina and Greece.

It is not the place of the US, particularly given its poor performance at the moment, to dictate to the rest of the world the form and substance of international dialogue.

Once Australia, as one of the pivotal nations in the evolution of the UN and with little past history as a colonial power to live down could have expected as a democratic and multi-ethnic nation with a good track record in peace-keeping and in supporting UN relief efforts, to have had a key role in any attempts to reform the UN and to be a part of the task of dialogue with dictatorial regimes. Howard has squandered this opportunity, probably irrevocably, by his uncritical subservience to the Bush Administration.

If you grab a handbag off an old lady in the street you are despised as the contemptible cowardly petty criminal that you are.

If you rob a bank at gunpoint you might make the news and if you make a habit of it they'll write a book about you. If they catch you they'll throw the book at you.

If you are the murderous power hungry psychopath in charge of an organised international criminal organisation involved in drug/gun running, corruption, money laundering, intimidation, extortion and the mass killing of innocents you will attract the attention of the police forces of perhaps fifty countries. Eventually they will put you away for tax evasion.

If you are the same psychopath but declare a political/religious motive, academics the world over will be sprawling over themselves swamping the publishers with manuscripts about why you and your ugly gangs hate us.

If you manage to steal a whole country, massacre everybody in sight who could prove to be a challenge and oppress the population with a brutality beyond the imagination of a healthy mind the red carpet will be out for you in just about every capital in Europe.

And you will get a vote in the United Nations.

Further, I'm not sure if Dee actually read what she wrote: "And don't bother about labelling people here either. Apologists for the Right like yourself..."

It seems that labelling is only permitted when you are on the left of the err, umm, edge.

Mark Segeant, thank you for correcting my error on the alphabet soup instrumentalities of the UN. The balance of what you have written is without substance.

Do you suppose that countries who recently tried to eradicate their Jewish populations (Germany and Russia), or countries that were at war with Israel (Jordan and Egypt), and countries that have nurtured Arab antisemitism (France, Sierre Leone) are in a position to make apolitical appointments to the IJC? Could they both judge Israel and appease their sponsor states? How does one represent a totalitarian regime such as China where a leader massacres protesters and yet sit in judgement of a country trying to protect it's citizens? Would you hesitate to look at the heritage of US Supreme court judges? Do you suppose that ICJ appointments are any different?

The jurisdictional issues are contentious.

Dee Bayliss does not know what a freedom loving country is. Sad for her. She lives in one, dissents about it and is protected by the law. There are very few places outside of Western Democracies where you can do that and live to tell the tale.

Both Dee Bayliss and Jenny Stirling continue to engage in unconvincing non sequiter arguments: if the US is bad then the UN is somehow exonerated. Of course none of my criticisms about the UN have been addressed by anyone. Calling me an apologist is mere ad hominem puffery.

Geoff Pahoff: “If you manage to steal a whole country, massacre everybody in sight who could prove to be a challenge and oppress the population with a brutality beyond the imagination of a healthy mind the red carpet will be out for you in just about every capital in Europe.

"And you will get a vote in the United Nations.”

You're right Geoff, I believe the US has a vote.

Edward Teasdale, by deliberately labelling you I was giving you a taste of your own medicine.

You have still not provided that list of "freedom loving countries". Think carefully about the histories, activities and characteristics of those countries you list when you do and reread posts from Jenny, Mark and Bob.

Australia is perilously close to becoming an embryonic police state with such legislation as has been courageously released by ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope in the offing. If that legislation goes through however it will not stifle dissent as Howard obviously hopes it will do. However it will allow dissenters to be gaoled and their lives disrupted. Yet it will not prevent one single terrorist attack. Legislation never does. Ask the British.

A pity because as I said previously Australia was, along with Canada and New Zealand among other smaller powers, once well-positioned to provide moral leadership to a revitalised UN. That is no longer the case. And you have ignored that issue.

You (and some others) also do not see that a revitalised UN could act as a curb against the ambitions of both the US and China, as well as an effective vehicle for the prevention of WMD development, proliferation and stockpiling. Regional and "interest" (say, trading partners or neighbouring countries with a common language) diplomacy can also be effective strategies. Effective military intervention in defence of human rights and to guarantee delivery of UN relief programmes should not be ruled out but it needs to be preceded by timely, proactive and transparent diplomacy unfettered by "special" relationships.

Saddam Hussein "suddenly" became a problem when he invaded Kuwait, but before then he had wielded his dictatorship untramelled because of his cosy relationship with the Bush family. Human rights were being abused long before the US suddenly became obsessed with removing him.

I was rather amused by your unilateral dismissal of democracies such as Germany and France as not having a "right" to judge any country. Modern Germany and modern France support both Israel's right to exist, and the right of the Palestinians to have their own state. No country in the world has an unblemished human rights or anti-colonial record so it is hard to see where you would find any which fit your unstated criteria. And you have chosen not to outline your criteria and back it up with evidence.

Edward Teasdale, having entered this thread on the basis of such selective use of evidence that revealed your bias, you now try to reduce the thread to an attack on supposed anti-semitism. As has often been discussed, the anti-semitism charge is regularly used to counter criticism of Israeli Government policies and actions. This is done to avoid actually having to provide a reasoned and evidenced counter to such criticism.

If you wish to pursue this line, which is a diversion from the issues raised by Dr Broinowski, then you should detail why you make such allegations and their relevance to contemporary issues. That is, provide a substantiated argument.

You should also, given your determination to pursue this line, comply with the WD Ethics requirement to reveal any affiliations that might influence what you post.

Dee, you can remain amused by my comments about Germany, Russia and France. When those countries have eradicated and attempted to eradicate all of their Jewish populations in your lifetime you do become somewhat cynical about their capacity to judge a Jewish nation. You also do become somewhat unconvinced of their moral authority, particularly as Russia continued to have blatantly antisemitic governments well into the late 20th century and France has failed to protect its own Jewish citizens.

To think that I would have the audacity to not follow through on your demand that I provide you a list of freedom loving countries!

How about you providing me with a list of Countries that have had or continue to have antisemitic policies. Then contrast this list with the judges on the ICJ. Then look at the UNGA membership and tell me how you are going to address that problem.

Hate to tell you this Edward but the onus and responsibility are on you to provide that list.

Show me evidence also that either post-war France or Germany has had blatantly anti-Semitic governments.

Of course anti-Semitism was long part of the fabric of both European and US society prior to the war and it is unrealistic to expect that it would have disappeared totally since. It has gone underground. Similarly there have been Right wing politicians elected to all European governments and to the US Congress whose bigotry credentials do not bear close inspection.

However as one example of how things have changed I point to laws in Germany which forbid the public display of Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial. There are no such laws here. Similarly France has laws against Holocaust denial.

I hope you are not committing the fallacy of the ignorant by confusing opposition to Israel's policies and behaviour with anti-Semitism.

Edward Teasdale, "I am not compelled to provide you with any list of any kind."

So you say. And it is obvious that you do not feel compelled to examine evidence comprehensively and objectively.

I gave you the example of the OFFP vs illicit smuggling which you had ignored. Given the evidence of the US involvement in the latter as well as their support for Iraq in the 1980s and earlier to write:

"Anything that supported this regime or profited from it was and evil act."

This directed at the UN and not including the US was quite absurd. A dead giveaway. Instant proof of your lack of interest in a meaningful debate.

Your dismissal of other 'Diarists views in the manner you have done and of the views of someone as qualified and respected as Dr Broinowski proves your lack of interest in a civil debate.

You describe of the Webdiary ethics as "doctrinaire and infamous", if you do not approve of the rules here and do not wish to comply, then you perhaps seek pastures more to your liking. Up to you, but we who care about Webdiary do insist on the standards being adhered to.

The question is then, why come here?

Some might think it to be deliberately disruptive.

John Pratt, thanks for your long list of the United States lobbing missiles. I’ve only had a cursory look at the list but, from that cursory look and a bit of googling, I’m happy to tell you that 11 of the alleged lobbings never happened, 6 were actions endorsed by the UN, 3 were actions taken in concert with its European partners including, believe it or not, France and Germany to end genocide in Europe, and 3 were retaliatory to terrorist attacks (and one a defensive action in international waters) and well covered by Article 48 of the UN Charter.

China 1945-46 Did not happen
Korea 1950-53 United Nations endorsed
China 1950-53 Did not happen (Truman fired MacArthur)
Guatemala 1954 Did not happen
Indonesia 1958 Did not happen
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960 Did not happen
Belgian Congo 1964 Did not happen
Guatemala 1964 Did not happen
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965 Did not happen
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69 Did not happen
Lebanon 1982-84 UN endorsed
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986 Defensive action after Libyan attack in international waters
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986 Double counting
Iran 1987-88 Did not happen
Libya 1989 Retaliatory attack for terrorist attacks
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002 United Nations endorsed
Kuwait 1991 United Nations endorsed
Somalia 1992-94 United Nations endorsed
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina) NATO action to stop genocide
Bosnia 1995 NATO action to stop genocide
Iran 1998 (airliner) Did not happen
Sudan 1998 Retaliatory attack on Al Qaeda
Afghanistan 1998 Retaliatory attack on Al Qaeda
Yugoslavia 1999 NATO action to stop genocide of Kosovars
Afghanistan 2001- United Nations endorsed

Johh Pratt wrote: "The United Nations is not perfect but it is the best we have. Super Powers come and go. The nations of the world need a forum to develop global strategies to combat global threats, such as global warming, global terrorism, nuclear disarmament, bird flu pandemics, rogue nations that invade countries without provocation, and to control the threat of super powers that wish to dominate the globe".

Unfortunately the UN is only that, a forum. It's power comes from achieving results when one of two conditions are met:

1. a proposal is made to resolve a problem, the problem is not controversial, and there is no opposition from any Veto wielding member of the UNSC or a faction of the UNGA

2. a proposal is made to resolve a problem, the problem is controversial but not so much as to risk being opposed by a veto wielding member of the UNSC or a majority of the UNGA, and a nation or group of nations are willing and able to bear the costs and commit the resources to resolve the problem.

The UN can be good at resolving noncontroversial problems. For example, it can carry out projects to immunize the children of Third World countries. As long as other nations are willing to pay for it, most members of the UN either support it or don't care enough to oppose it.

But for any other problems that involve some element of controversy, there are almost always some nations or factions that will oppose any reasonable solution by the UN. An example is the proposal to authorise countries to intervene in the Serbian war to avoid genocide. It was the likelihood of a veto by Russia that scuttled those efforts, leading to the next best choice of NATO sending in troops. Another example is Darfur where China and France are more concerned with losing oil concessions than with the deaths of thousands of innocents and have threatened to veto most viable proposals to resolve the problem.

Islamist terrorism, global warming, trade barriers, genetically modified foods, and many others are issues that cannot escape substantial infighting within the chambers of the UN. For these especially troublesome issues, something better than the UN must be created to resolve them.

Saying that the UN is not perfect but it's the best we have is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

Bob Wall, "As has often been discussed, the anti-semitism charge is regularly used to counter criticism of Israeli Government policies and actions".

An example please, Bob Wall. Just one will do. An example of someone serious seriously charging a critic of Israeli Government policies and actions with anti-Semitism by virtue of that criticism ipso facto.

Dee Bayless, "the fallacy of the ignorant by confusing opposition to Israel's policies and behaviour with anti-Semitism."

An example please, Dee Bayless. Just one will do. An example of someone serious confusing opposition to Israel's policies and behaviour with anti-Semitism.

Of course attacks on Israel are often fuelled by anti-Semitism. I suggest this is beyond argument and is sometimes pointed out when they occur. But that is saying something entirely different.

Edward Teasdale has said nothing like what you have suggested. But that has not stopped you from dragging out this tired old charge and dumping on the table like a dead goose.

When someone says that the system works best when the UN and the US works together, what she actually means is that it only works when the all countries that make up the UN have a say equal to the US in deciding the course of action to take. And the US is ordered to carry out those decisions, spending its treasure, sending its troops, incurring the casualties, and bearing the suffering. And money or soldiers or the bearing of burdens contributed by other countries are token amounts at best.

Where either one of this unholy tandem is missing, whether it be that the UN is not permitted to make the decision, or the US refuses to carry out the action, the world claims that the US is arrogant, insular, dangerous, imperialistic, or unilateral.

This is unconscionably unjust. The UN cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. And the US no longer is willing to bear the lions share of the responsibility and costs in carrying them out.

The system isn't broken. It simply never worked. Let's put an end to this farce now and replace it with something that can solve the serious problems this world faces. And let's do it soon.

Edward Teasdale: "There remains a case to answer as to why the UN, a hotbed of anti-Semitism, should be supported as a pseudo-egalitarian power base for despotic countries to undermine free states. The UN is an expensive joke that ceased to be funny in the early 50s (or maybe earlier).

We should turn off the lights, walk out of the building and join an expanded alliance with all freedom loving countries".

I think you have that 100% right Edward. Only I think a person could argue the UN did at least allow for some meaningful dialogue during the cold war. Once the wall fell however the UN became a expensive waste of time and that has not changed one bit.

It is time for democratic freedom loving nations to join their own club. I see little to no value in Australia sharing a room with the likes of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria and a list of others. The past is the past and should stay there.

It would appear that Russians have finally decided to bury their past (Lenin) for once and for all. It is a pity that the much of the world does not follow suit and do exactly the same thing with that waste of space the UN.

The freedom loving world does not need the UN. The despots, bludgers and urgers of the world need the UN.

Dee, it is always a mistake to engage you as one is forced into non-sequiter discussions.

Simply put, Israel's human right's record does not warrant it being the subject of more than half of the UNGA resolutions. It is simply inconceivable that this is a real reflection of the human rigts record of the other UNGA members. Kofi Annan has even recognised this, it's astonishing that you dont.

I am not compelled to provide you with any list of any kind. Your beligerance on this is yet another obfuscation of your avoidance of my substantive criticisms of the original piece. Further your patronising directive for me to reread earlier posts was unecessary. They were no better the second read.

Whilst there may be legislation in Germany against Holocaust denial and Nazi symbolism, there is no legislation against Lutheranism which is the dominant religion in that state. Luther's last book was entitled "the Jews and their lies." This is part of the German psyche. No legislation will change that.

When I cannot live in more than half of the members of the UNGA simply because of my religion, this is a problem of current antisemitism. Of course, your preoccupation with the Big Satan (as with your mates at Al Jazeera) makes it impossible to address the issue at hand ie that the UN is a complete failure. You have produced no evidence at all to the contrary.

As for Bob Wall's request that I comply with the doctrinaire and infamous Webdiary 'ethics', I am a member of no organisation. Do you ask this of everyone, or only supporters of Israel? When did you last ask this Bob?

Rather than be a distraction from Broinowski's issues, I see all of the points I have made as completely undermining what she has written. Sycophantic responses that support her have not once undermined the substance of what I have written.

Geoff Pahoff, your request is beneath contempt. Only a propagandist could try to deny that this occurs.

Perhaps this review might help:

Finkelstein's answer, copiously documented, is that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted. Finkelstein also scrutinizes the proliferation of distortion masquerading as history. Recalling Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial, published to great fanfare in 1984 but subsequently exposed as an academic hoax, he asks deeply troubling questions here about the periodic reappearance of spurious scholarship and the uncritical acclaim it receives. The most recent addition to this mendacious genre, Finkelstein argues, is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's bestseller, The Case for Israel.

The core analysis of Beyond Chutzpah sets Dershowitz's assertions on Israel's human rights record against the findings of the mainstream human rights community. Sifting through thousands of pages of reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, Finkelstein demonstrates that Dershowitz has systematically misrepresented the facts. Thoroughly researched and tightly argued, Beyond Chutzpah lifts the veil of contrived controversy shrouding the Israel-Palestine conflict, enabling readers in search of a just and lasting peace to act on the basis of truth.

Closer to home, there have been instances of the "antisemitism" claim thrown around. They can be found in the archives. Also Grant Ye came close with his "anti-Israel slur" response to a valid criticism of Israeli policies.

Funny thing with Grant, when asked the 'affiliations' question he answered for two people he claimed not to know. When asked to clarify his answer he disappeared from view.

Care to have a go?

Why do I ask? When someone is determined to promote a one-sided argument almost to the exclusion of any other matters and even on threads where the subject is not relevant, I wonder why.

Bob Wall you need to understand that one can have a difference of opinion to you and have that opinion based in fact without belonging to any particular organisation that you find suspicious.

Just because I do not value your contribution as 'evidence' does not mean that I have not read it. Unfortunately I did.

Dr Broinowski certainly has credentials. When you look closely at what they are, they are more focused on the perception of Australia in Asia than anything else. It does not make her an authority on the UN just because she was in the diplomatic corps.

I thought this was an egalitarian forum in which ideas could be challenged. Unfortunately it is increasingly obvious that some people would hide behind Dr Broinowski's skirt to avoid real debate.

Edward Teasdale: " It does not make her an authority on the UN just because she was in the diplomatic corps."

So what qualifies you to make that statement? What expertise do you have that exceeds Dr Broinowski's?

"I thought this was an egalitarian forum in which ideas could be challenged. Unfortunately it is increasingly obvious that some people would hide behind Dr Broinowski's skirt to avoid real debate."

Real debate? I think you are confused. Real debate is not you making unsubstantiated assertions, ignoring evidence you do not like and attacking other 'Diarists.

So you rejected my evidence which was only from three different sources and you should be aware that there is a lot more out there. And you did not comment on the exclusion of the US from your:

"Anything that supported this regime or profited from it was and evil act."

Plenty of evidence for US support for Iraq up to 1990 and the illicit smuggling. Just not convenient for your spin.

Bob Wall, the review does help. Although I've read it before or something very similar. After a while all this stuff seems to blend together into the one rancid filthy stew.

It helps because it proves my point that this allegation is ubiquitous. You saw yourself that the criticism of Israel's policies ipso facto equals anti-Semitism charge is used regularly. You even gave a reason for it. If that's the case you shouldn't have any trouble putting your hands on an example laying about and showing us, should you?

How on earth was Michael Ye's comment about an anti-Israel slur close to an allegation of anti-Semitism? If he has "disappeared" he'd hardly be the only one who has or has come very close recently. I will suggest that you are overdosing on self-flattery if you think you scared him off. Let me be as clear as I can about this. I will not be placing any weight on your opinion of what is or is not a valid criticism of Israel.

My first post on this thread was about the UN. You were talking about Israel long before me. As for my affiliations - I'm a non-voting member of the Rainbow Bay Surf Club although I think that may have lapsed so I'll have to renew it. I'm a member of the NRMA. Or maybe that's my car. I was a member of the ALP but that was so many years ago I've forgotten.

And that's it. What precisely did you have in mind?

There seems to be some immutable laws at work when this subject comes up. Among these:

You cannot debunk an invalid criticism of Israel without someone saying something like, "Just because I'm a critic of Israeli Government policy doesn't mean I'm an anti-Semite you know."

You cannot defend Israel without sooner or later someone denouncing you as a racist.

You cannot defend Israel without sooner or later someone dropping dark heavy hints that you are part of some secret conspiracy or have hidden affiliations.

Any discussion of the widespread problem of crude anti-Semitism across the Arab world in particular and its impact on a peaceful resolution is expressly off-limits or met with that "Arabs are Semites so they can't be anti-Semites" piece of nonsense.

Legitimate and genuine critics of Israeli policy or action will never or hardly ever denounce anti-Semitic attacks on Israel.

Once again Bob Wall. An example please?

Edward as Bob Wall has correctly pointed out you introduced the subject of anti-Semitism. No one else did. So you are responsible for any diversions from the topic.

I haven't said anything about any state's human rights record except Australia's. Show me where I did. I am still waiting for your list of "freedom loving nations." That is the point where, being unable to provide it, you then lurched into the anti-Semitism fast lane.

Luther in common with many Germans of his generation was an anti-Semite (and Germany was not even at that stage a nation). Historians have known this for years so your observations do not break any new ground. Luther's generation also straddled the 15th and 16th centuries. I daresay the Welshman Henry VII, who was a contemporary of Luther's had some odd ideas about the Jews as well, in common with many other people in Britain, since it was only a bit more than 200 years since the massacre at York and England had the most segregated Jewish population in Western Europe. But would you then turn around and say that modern Britain is anti-Semitic because the Catholic Church and hence its Anglican successor which his son founded were anti-Semitic?

There are anti-Semites in Britain. They are small in number and generally low in intellect like their counterparts here. So why your obsession with anti-Semites and what do they have to do with the UN?

Now we move to this comment of yours:

"Of course, your preoccupation with the Big Satan (as with your mates at Al Jazeera) makes it impossible to address the issue at hand i.e. that the UN is a complete failure."

I do not have any mates at Al Jazeera. Weak attempts like yours at setting up straw men are not debate.

But you have to admit that the US, specifically under its current regime and exceptionalist philosophy, is probably one of the largest obstacles to an effective UN.

As John Pratt says:

The United Nations is not perfect but it is the best we have. Super Powers come and go. The nations of the world need a forum to develop global strategies to combat global threats, such as global warming, global terrorism, nuclear disarmament, bird flu pandemics, rogue nations that invade countries without provocation, and to control the threat of super powers that wish to dominate the globe.
Australia should be supporting the United Nations and working towards improving the systems developed by the United Nations rather than becoming the deputy sheriff of a superpower that is happy to pursue world domination at whatever cost.

Silvio, one UN official got away with a few million bucks and is vilified and demonised.
Bloody Paul Bremmer "lost" $11 billion in rebuilding money in Iraq and hasn't been seen since.
Get a grip man. The UN is all of us. It is not a thing. It is us. The people of the world.
It is the major players in the security council with veto powers that stuff things up and the US in the major culprit.

Bob Wall writes: "Plenty of evidence for US support for Iraq up to 1990 and the illicit smuggling. Just not convenient for your spin."

Why is US support for Iraq prior to 1990 always brought up as if it were significant. Was the US alone in this respect? Did Iraq have no other friends in the region, in Europe, the rest of the world, outside of the United States?

As to the illicit smuggling of oil to Turkey and Jordan, which the US allegedly supported, the reasons provided in the CNN report are hardly capricious. In what way did members of either the Clinton or Bush Administrations secretly profit from these transactions; they merely looked the other way as oil from Iraq was transported to the aforementioned states. The difference between this and the oil for food scandal is enormous. Why would one even need to ignore the former?

But to return to the substance of this thread; the legal, political, and moral authority, or lack thereof, of the UN. The tragedy of the oil for food scandal is that UN bureaucrats secretly profited from a UN program (oil for food) designed to alleviate the effects of UN sanctions on a member state.

I'm not surprised that the US(or any another member state) acts in its own interests, but I'm not entirely sure who's interests the UN serves, apart from, in this instance, its own.