Caretaker of the World

Thank heavens for the existence of the United Nations. Yes, it has a bloated bureaucracy, and yes it is inefficient, corrupt, hypocritical, and utterly useless in helping to solve the globe's incessant conflicts, or even to put in place peace-keeping contingents that might be capable of fending off ethnic, religious, political, ideological, tribal conflicts. But it offers well-paying employment to great hordes of people from developing countries.

And, as an international club of great prestige pampering itself in the glory of humanitarian goodness and posing as the world's ultimate champion of human rights, it holds an irresistible draw. To become a part of the United Nations is considered to be the ultra accomplishment, hugely respected and the deference that accrues to the institution simply cannot be reflected through any other symbol of global enterprise.

Just before the referendum in Crimea last month the UN Security Council voted on a resolution reaffirming Ukraine's "sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity". Like all motherhood issues this was a pious declaration of support for Ukraine's right to determine its own destiny without unwanted interference from any source not authorized by Ukraine itself.

In view of the knowledge of the upcoming referendum the unified position was that it "can have no validity". Of the 15 Security Council members, thirteen voted in favour of the resolution, one abstained and one voted against. Unsurprisingly the one 'against' was none other than Russia's. And so was the resolution defeated, since Russia is one of five countries capable of vetoing any Security Council decision.

That same resolution was then considered by the 193 countries of the UN General Assembly, where one hundred declared the results of the referendum had "no validity", and thus "cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea". Another 58 countries abstained and 11 voted against, with two dozen not making the effort to show up for the vote.

Within the United Nations one body and one alone has the ultimate authority to issue binding resolutions. The permanent Security Council  consisting of the United States, Britain, France, China and of course, Russia. Whether it considers resolutions and sanctions on issues as disparate as the dreadful Syria file, the intractable Israeli-Palestinian situation, on Iran's intentions with nuclear weaponry, the conflicts in Africa the debating society of the Security Council finds few areas of agreement.

Libya, Cuba, China, Azerbaijan and other countries not exactly known for their huge respect for liberty and human rights are routinely voted into position on the UN's human rights bodies. For rank hypocrisy nothing beats the United Nations' various committees on human rights.  Iran's human rights record has been slammed and damned universally yet the UN Economic and Social Council elected Iran to a four-year term  on its 45-nation Commission on the Status of Women dedicated to protecting women's rights.

Iran was also elected as a member of the UN's 19-nation Committee on NGOs which allows the silencing of criticism for those countries placed on the committee acting as overseers of human rights groups for whom they stand in judgement. Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Mauritania, Russia were elected to other UN bodies, obviously in recognition of their sterling attributes as upholders of human rights.

Sudan, whose president Omar Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for genocide in Darfur was also elected to a similar UN position.

The list goes on, to include countries like Turkey, Burundi, Guinea, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Venezuela, considered by Freedom House to be "partly free" -- in other words not the absolute worst examples of oppressive dictatorships -- have been similarly courted and rewarded to sit on United Nations committees.

It is so good to know that the health of the world is in such reliable, trustworthy hands.