I read a post by Ed Thomas yesterday, titled "BBC and the UN's problem with morality", in which he outlines the continual bias of these organizations against the US and UK governments. He uses the example of the UNÂ’s recent renewal of Zimbabwe's seat, as a member of the UNÂ’s human rights commission. He argues that these 2 organizations often overlook issues/abuses by African governments, in order to maintain their criticism against US/UK and their foreign policie. The reason for his criticism is summarized below.

This just sums up the wrong headedness of the Beeb (BBC) and the UN, who often these days seem partners in crime. The cause of suffering, ie. the tolerance of foul and callous leadership in Africa, is demoted to a footnote, while the sticking plaster of what amounts to compassionateÂ… is foregrounded- and thus we get warm and fuzzies about the UN and totally misled about [their] failures to confront the evils that plague Africa.

It's a criticism with which I concur, except that I would have used stronger language. I have many problems with Zimbabwe's renewal; mostly for what it means for both the UN and Annan, that they are once again escaping public scrutiny and hiding behind a diplomatic cloak. But I'm especially angry, for what it means, in terms of the tacit approval given, to Zimbabwe's government; that it's OK to tolerate corruption and fraud, so long as your taking some small miniscule step to feed and help your people while pointing the finger at others. It seems that the criticism labeled at us stems from the US/UK holding off or cutting aid and support until the UN cleans up it's act and honestly conducts a thorough investigation in the Oil for Food program scandal.

Posted by: Michele at 12:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.