Ronald Bailey | May 14, 2007
It's enough to make you weep or throw things in frustration. Zimbabwe has been selected to head the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. As the Times (London) observes, Robert Mugabe's government has
...left 700,000 of its citizens without accommodation by bulldozing their homes, caused millions more to starve after violent land seizures that destroyed farming and so mismanaged its own economy that it has the world’s highest inflation.
The Harrisonburg Daily News properly asks:
Is there any nation on Earth more unsuited for that position?
I can think of a few other possible nominees. Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo come to mind, but the Daily News' point is valid.
This is not an isolated instance of outrageous UN appointments. Recall that Libya was once selected to head the UN Human Rights Commission.
Frequent reason contributor Jonathan Rauch once proposed creating a league of democracies as a counterweight to a thoroughly corrupt UN.
Finally, it seems that Robert Mugabe is following my advice on how to achieve the miracle of poverty.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Well, as these countries are part of the U.N. it ain't like they can be kept off these bodies, especially since rotation is part of the process.
Grotius: Correct. But as I understand it the "rotation" is between continents, not just countries. While few African countries are poster children for "sustainable development" (also known as democratic capitalism), Botswana would have been a better choice. Or maybe the US should just refuse to join or support UN agencies that produce such outrageous results. I'm just saying.
On that "League of Democracies" business, George Orwell wrote an essay about that idea in the 1930s. Seems that his primary objection has gone away with the end of empires and might be a pretty good idea to dust off and try now.
Zimbabwe is an obvious choice to preside over sustainable development issues. Afterall, its government ensures that its status as a developing country will be sustainable.
I think there was a candidate for President in 2004 who
advocated blowing up the UN building. Of course he was going to
give them a week to evacuate.
What was name of that candidate again, it's right on the tip of my
tongue.
Grotius, it does the raise the questions of (1) why these
countries are part of the UN, and(2) why these positions are filled
by rotation.
Not to mention (3) why is there a UN in the first place?
The closest thing to a League of Democracies is the EU which, at
times, looks more like a League of Bureaucrats. Expecting change
from large, formal organizations of governments with hundreds of
entrenched interests is silly.
BTW, has anyone here even heard of the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development until this incident? Is it similar to the
UN Commitee on Decolonization which apparently exists to fight
for the rights of oppressed Bermudans?
Ron Bailey,
Well, African countries represent a big block of votes and as I
understand that plays into these issues. I don't pretend to be any
sort of expert on the U.N. though.
R.C. Dean,
Because the U.S. created it and the time we apparently wanted it to
represent all individual nations.
I think folks tend to forget that our nation birthed the
U.N.
That is one late-term abortion I would have supported.
In the 1940s, there were many fewer countries in the world, and the UN served the purpose of giving the US and the USSR another point of contact. The expansion of countries in the world, and the rise of nonstate power, has made the purposes for which the UN is useful less important.
jb,
Perhaps. But the question why does it look like it does? In part
because it was founded in a particular way.
That is one late-term abortion I would have
supported.
Grotius tees it up, and Guy knocks it out. Well done, sir.
Come on, it's the perfect showpiece of "sustainability" Abject poverty and subsistence farming being the ultimate goal of the sustainability hawkers.
What was name of that candidate again, it's right on the tip
of my tongue.
Michael Badnarik! The same guy who wanted to get rid of drivers
licenses and keep prisoners tied to their beds for the duration of
their sentences, so their muscles would atrophy.
And I voted for him. Says a lot about Bush and Kerry, no?
I think folks tend to forget that our nation birthed the
U.N.
Yet another example of FDR's naive foolishness haunting us well
into the next century.
crimethink,
Maybe. What I find hilarious about the founding is the (completely
predictable) spying being done by the various parties to the U.N.
Charter. Distrust existed from the start.
Does the UN have it's own anthem yet, for when it becomes our
world government? Or at least some theme music? Because I'd like to
suggest something based on that calliope circus music.
You know, the one that goes:
Doot-doot doodley doot-doot-doo
Doot-doot doodley doot-doot-doo
DOOT doo doot doot, DOOT doo doot doot
Doot-doot doodley doot doot doo doo
Doot-doot doodley doot-doot-doo ...
Yet another example of FDR's naive foolishness haunting us
well into the next century.
I don't think FDR was niave. FDR was a very politically savvy
fascist.
Bob wrote:
"Come on, it's the perfect showpiece of "sustainability" Abject
poverty and subsistence farming being the ultimate goal of the
sustainability hawkers."
I gather you're just engaging in jesting polemics, but you are at
all serious, I must strongly disagree. As evience, I show
www.treehugger.com wherein a considerable amount of new technology
is shown along with expected politcal comentary and debate from a
variety of 'green' circles.
While it's not 'libertarian', I see no evidence there that
'hawkers' want everyone to be in abject poverty; and while
generally bullish on the 100 Mile Diet thing, they have expressed
caution about it. Subsistence farming isn't necessarily
'sustainable'.
I can think of a few other possible nominees. Haiti and the
Democratic Republic of Congo come to mind, but the Daily News'
point is valid.
I think Zimbabwe still wins hands down. Mugabe took what was a
pretty good economy and systematically ran it into the ground. The
current governments of Haiti and the DR Congo simply inherited what
were already basket cases. (Though I will admit that whatever
Haitian government took over after the U.S. Marines left in 1934
has about as much to answer for as does Mugabe.)
World Publics Favor New Powers for the UN; Most Support
Standing UN Peacekeeping Force, UN Regulation of International Arms
Trade
Publics around the world favor dramatic steps to strengthen the United Nations, including giving it the power to have its own standing peacekeeping force, to regulate the international arms trade and to investigate human rights abuses.
Just to be a contrarian voice here...
It seems that Zimbabwe has the most to learn from the process, and,
therefore, may be the perfect country to head up the study on this
issue.
There seems to be some assumption that heading up the commission is
the same thing as determining the output of the committee.
Communication between nations with different skill sets and
perspectives is the point of the UN... and the motivation behind
rotating countries through various positions.
"Abject poverty and subsistence farming being the ultimate goal
of the sustainability hawkers."
That is a serious distortion of reality.
From the Worldwatch Institute
"Sustainable economics is about making the global economy
sustainable without sacrificing the benefits of industrialism. One
focus of Worldwatch work on economics has been government spending
and taxation policies. Currently, governments subsidize
environmentally harmful activities such as driving, logging, and
mining, tilting the economy in the direction of resource waste and
pollution."
http://www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/118
"Does the UN have it's own anthem yet, for when it becomes our
world government?"
Of
course.
Herman Daly has some points that need to be addressed in any
serious discussion.
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
"Growth in GNP should cease when decreasing marginal benefits
become equal to increasing marginal costs. But there is no
statistical series that attempts to measure the cost of GNP. This
is growth mania, literally not counting the costs of growth. But
the situation is even worse. We take the real costs of increasing
GNP as measured by the defensive expenditures incurred to protect
ourselves from the unwanted side effects of production and add
these expenditures to GNP rather than subtract them. We count real
costs as benefits."
"Dude I'm not going to a sight called treehugger.com. I have
some standards."
Actually, much as it pains me to say it, treehugger.com can be
quite interesting. That said, abject poverty may not be the
ultimate goal of "sustainabilty", but it is the condition that poor
countries will find themselves constrained to if they stay
sustainable.
I don't think FDR was niave. FDR was a very politically
savvy fascist.
His tendency to cuddle up with Stalin, in whom he had an almost
childlike trust, goes against that opinion. I'm going to have to
side with Napoleon on the whole incompetence vs. malice thing.
The defining characteristic of "sustainable development" is that
it recognizes the need for economic growth in order to achieve
environmental protection. Desperately poor people in Africa, for
example, do things like chop down trees for firewood, burn forests
for agriculture, and shoot endangered species for meat. The
intellectual breakthrough that the Rio Conference produced was the
recognition by environmentalists that stalling economic growth is
both immoral, and counter-productive to environmental
protection.
But hey, accusing people of wanting to starve Africans is almost as
cute as accusing them of wanting to feed people into plastic
shredders. And just as intellectually dishonest.
The UN - at least, the General Assembly and committees - isn't a
thing, it's a forum. It's a place where we work to further our
interests and values, and compete against our opponents. Like any
other venue, it has its own rules.
The League of Democracies wouldn't replace the UN; it would allow
us and those who share our bedrock principles to win in that
venue.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245