Saturday, September 25, 2004

Even NY Times rips the amoral UN

New York Times (via InstaPundit):

The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.

For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.

But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.

And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.

There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqu�-issuing.

The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to 'consider' sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.

As Instapundit would say, read the whole thing.

The UN is at its core, as the author said, amoral. Here we have the implementation of relativism/postmodernism, in this case by the unelected, unaccountable wanna-be world government called the UN. Yes, we oppose genocide, at least in theory. Realistically though, we won't get in the way of our esteemed Russian or Chinese friends making a buck.

Rejecting any absolute basis for morality, i.e. recognition of a transcendent Creator to whom we are each accountable, the substitute appears to be a crude hybrid of utilitarianism and the law of the jungle, no better than the ethos of Jeffrey Dahmer or the Killing Fields.

The UN is not useless. It is much worse than that.