Criticism and controversies
See also: China and the United Nations, Israel and the United Nations, Soviet Union and the United Nations, and United States and the United Nations
[edit] Security Council
The United Nations has been criticized as unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Recent examples include the Iranian nuclear program and the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the United States on one side with either China, Russia or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolutions 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm non-governmental militias such as Hezbollah. Critics question the effectiveness and relevance of the Security Council because there usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. See Reform of the United Nations Security Council.
[edit] Human Rights oversight
Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations, such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have demonstrably abysmal records on human rights,[25][26] and also Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been in the past an issue. These countries, however, argued that Western countries, whom they accused of colonialist aggression and brutality, had no right to argue about membership of the Commission.
However on 15 March 2006 the General Assembly passed a resolution creating a new body - the United Nations Human Rights Council – to replace the Commission. The body has stricter rules for peacekeeping membership including a universal human rights review and an dramatic increase in the number of nations needed to elect a candidate to the body, from election-by-regional-slate on the 53-member Economic and Social Council to fully one-half of the 192 members of the General Assembly.
9 May 2006 saw the elections of 47 new members to the Council. While some governments with poor records were elected, such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan, the worst rights violators did not make it onto the new Council:
• States shunned by rights groups: Syria, North Korea, Belarus, and Burma
• States which had been members of the Commission: Zimbabwe, Sudan, Nepal, and Libya
• States which ran but did not receive enough votes: Iran, Venezuela, Thailand, Iraq, and Kyrgyzstan
Due to the changes in membership between the Commission and the Council, the number of states deemed "Not Free" by Freedom House was more than halved.[27][28][29]
[edit] Bureaucratic inefficiency
The U.N. has been accused of inefficiency and waste due to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. During the 1990s the United States, currently the largest contributor to the U.N., gave this inefficiency as a reason for withholding their dues. The repayment of the dues was made conditional on a major reforms initiative. In 1994 the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was established by a ruling of the General Assembly to serve as an efficiency watchdog.[30] A reform program has been proposed, but has not yet approved by the General Assembly.[31][32]
[edit] Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Discrimination
See also: Israel and the United Nations
The United Nations has been accused of taking an extremely one-sided approach to Middle East issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[28][29][30]. These charges allege that Israel has been singled out by the world body for uniquely critical treatment. Unlike all other refugee groups, the Palestinians have their own agency within the United Nations (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) separate from the The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is otherwise responsible for global refugee crises. [31]
Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000; in effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is permitted only to participate in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council.
[edit] Oil-for-Food scandal
See also: Oil-for-Food Programme
The Oil-for-Food Programme was established by the UN in 1996. Its purpose was to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs of ordinary Iraqi citizens who were affected by international economic sanctions, without allowing the Iraqi government to rebuild its military in the wake of the first Gulf War. It was discontinued in late 2003 amidst allegations of widespread abuse and corruption. The former director, Benon Sevan of Cyprus, first was suspended, then resigned from the UN, as an interim progress report of a UN-sponsored investigation led by Paul Volcker concluded that Sevan had accepted bribes from the Iraqi regime, and recommended that his UN immunity be lifted to allow for a criminal investigation.[33]
Under UN auspices, over $65 billion worth of Iraqi oil was sold on the world market. Officially, about $46 billion was used for humanitarian needs. Additional revenue paid for Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund, UN administrative and operational costs for the Programme (2.2%), and the weapons inspection programme (0.8%).
Also implicated in the scandal was Kofi Annan's son Kojo Annan, alleged to have illegally procured UN Oil-for-Food contracts on behalf of the Swiss company Cotecna. India's foreign minister, Natwar Singh, was removed from office because of his role in the scandal.
The Australian government set up the Cole Inquiry in November 2005 to investigate whether the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) breached any laws with its contracts with Iraq during the Oil-for-Food Programme. AWB paid Saddam Hussein's regime almost $300 million, through a front company called 'Alia', to secure wheat contracts to Iraq. Australia's Prime Minister (John Howard), Deputy Prime Minister (Mark Vaile), and Foreign Minister (Alexander Downer) denied knowing about such bribes when they were called to testify before the inquiry. It has been suggested that although the Australian Government did not monitor AWB effectively enough to stop the bribes, the UN should have been more forceful in requesting the Australian Government to investigate. The Cole Inquiry is scheduled to report on 24 November 2006.[34]
[edit] UN Peacekeepers rape accusations in Congo and Haiti
In December 2004, during the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo, at least 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia and more than 150 other allegations have been uncovered by UN investigators, all perpetrated by UN peacekeepers, specifically ones from Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal. Peacekeepers from 3 of those nations are also accused of obstructing the investigation [32]. Also, A French UN logistics expert in Congo was also charged of rape and child pornography in the same month [33].
The BBC reported that young girls were abducted and raped by UN peacekeerps in Port-au-Prince.[34]