It's not that you can't make this kind of stuff up, it's just that I wish they were:
Zimbabwe, the human rights pariah accused of violence, intimidation and suppression of free speech against its people, has been re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Commission for a three-year term over the strong protests of Australia, the US and Canada. --Sydney Morning Herald (Hat tip to normblog)
Things like this make me wonder why we actually care what sort of ambassador we send to this collection of clowns and criminals. I'd like to say I'm shocked and outraged, but I'd be lying. At this point, do things like this surprise anyone? Can you actually say "moral weight of the United Nations" with face straight and voice unsullied by sarcasm?
For me, I think the outrage has transcended any particular incident into "UN fatigue," a general loathing of the entire body. I don't think it can be reformed, the chief abusers of the system don't want it to be reformed, and too many other people think that only the UN can provide effective disaster relief or "legitimize" peacekeeping operations.
In a way I feel sorry for some of these people. They have so internalized the way things are done at the UN that everything is viewed through a baby blue prism of commissions and coordinating groups. What is good for the world is good for the UN and vice versa. The concept that some other body might be able to do things better is simply alien to their world view and blinds them to the true underlying problem with the UN: when you assemble a collection of predominantly unfree states, they are not going to take any actions to bring another unfree state to heel, lest they find themselves next on the list. They will want procedures and protocol established, to tie things up in endless debates about process and minutia, til the actual problem at hand is forgotten, smothered under reams of memoranda.
Out of this environment, we should not be surprised to see so may resolutions, but so little resolve.
