Libya and the United Nations

The latest news from the United Nations reinforces the cynicism of many in the United States towards this world organization. It was set up in the aftermath of World War 2, much like the old League of Nations was established after the first world war. The utopian dreams were the same—if we could only get together and control any bad impulses of nations . . . Of course, we know how well the League functioned. The world ended up with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. Not exactly what naïve world leaders like Woodrow Wilson were hoping for.

Now we have the United Nations dealing with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Just last January this august body looked into the regime’s moral progress through one of its agencies, The U.N. Human Rights Council.
It released its quadrennial report on human rights in Libya as part of its "universal periodic review." The UPR—advertised as one of the improvements of the Council when it replaced the U.N.'s old Human Rights Commission in 2006—is supposed to provide "objective and reliable information" on human rights in U.N. member states. Sure . . .

So how did Libya fare? According to The Wall Street Journal, the report notes that "a number of delegations commended Libya for the preparation and presentation of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stake holders in the preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground."

Now how did the council come to that conclusion? Well, to start with, Libya itself offered a generous assessment of its own rights record. Then other truly noble and humane countries lavished praise on Gadhafi’s government. Cuba commended Gadhafi for "the progress it made in . . . primary education," and North Korea lauded Libya's "achievements in the protection of human rights." I don’t know about you, but I feel relieved that such democratic, liberal, and sophisticated countries lined up behind Libya.

The sad part is seen in comments by countries that ought to know better but have been blinded by multicultural, relativistic, non-judgmental nonsense. For example, Australia, "welcomed Libya's progress in human rights." Canada praised "the recent legislation that granted women married to foreigners the right to pass on their Libyan nationality to their children." Then there was Poland, which highlighted Libya's "achievements in recent years, including its efforts to combat corruption and trafficking."

How about our country? Can you guess how it reacted, thanks to the leadership of President Obama, who has made a point of ignoring our friends and elevating our enemies? The U.S., which joined the Council as a sign of the Obama Administration's good global citizenship, "supported Libya's increased engagement with the international community." At least the U.S. also "expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners" along with other rights violations. Similarly limp statements of concern were offered by the Australians, Canadians and Poles.

Did any country report the real picture? Yes, little Switzerland noted that Libyan "courts continued to pronounce death sentences and inflict corporal punishment, including whipping and amputation." Gee, in my view that calls into question the praise heaped on Libya, or am I wrong?

So the U.N. continues to exist, thanks in large part to our donations. It’s hard to take this organization seriously when its human rights body has members like Libya and Cuba. What next—North Korea’s “Dear Leader” for the Nobel Peace Prize?