A matter of justice
Over the lsat few Sundays, the sermon has touched on matters of justice. Over the last year or so I have been reading about an issue that requires justice, but it has been seemingly ignored in the MSM (Main Stream Media) until as of late. The Oil for Food UN Scandal is one of the biggest international scandals of our times. Discussion about the scandal often revolves around two fronts: 1) in connection with the war in Iraq and 2) UN bashing. I dont mention the scandal in order to bash the UN. The UN can serve a valid purpose but it is things like this scandal that weaken its legitimacy. Nor do I mention it to point fingers at war obstructionists. The exchange of favors/contracts/money for the ability to divert funds for humanitarian causes to a military bank account is plain wrong and requires justice. Keep up on the scandal by reading the UNSCAM blog.
Pip said,
December 2, 2004 @ 8:56 pm
Thanks for the info, Paul.
You’re right, and as Christians, we should be on the front lines vehemently denouncing the UN’s abuses, as they are indeed matters of gross injustice, and on a wide scale (involving as they do several countries). I know you’re not intending to bash the UN, but a thoughtful critique of the various scandals (and those are just the ones we know about) would have to include looking at whether or not the institution itself creates an environment for such abuses (lending legitimacy and power, for instance, to rogue nations).
Paul S. said,
December 3, 2004 @ 11:13 am
Mr.Pip,
Yes I agree that one does need to look at whether the environment of the UN provides legitimacy to rogue nations.
I think most of us have a fuzzy notion as to what the UN should really do and be. It sometimes acts like it is a world government body when it reality it is more like a cooperative. The UN works well when it acts like the latter, but fails miserably when it acts like the former.
At the end of World War II, the UN decided that they would not let genocide on the scale that occured in Germany ever happen again (will have to dig up that resolution from the UN site). All one has to do is list Russia, China, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sudan to show how the UN has failed.
The problem is that the UN has long been “politically correct” even way before being politically correct was in vogue. Political correctness results in nothing; per stalemate and inaction. The UN’s political correctness is directly related to its acting like a world government. The two go hand in hand. If they actually stood for something and acted like a cooperative then they could accomplish more especially in the area of preventing genocide.
My history lessons on the League of Nations have been minimal. What were the fundamental reasons for its demise?
Pip said,
December 6, 2004 @ 5:24 pm
I, too, am woefully uneducated about the UN’s history. That said, I think that one difference between its founding days and its current state is that where it once was an organization of nations with common goals and beliefs, it is now comprised of nations of disparate goals and interests.
Also, I think a lot of the modern UN’s problems have to do with a “leveling the playing field” of American participation and leadership (the other side of the same coin of rogue nations’ increased legitimacy). It reflects the post-modern view that all participants/ideas/worldviews have equal merit, as opposed to the view that some nations generally can and should be trusted with leadership in the world order.
I see the UN as embodying the same type of approach to effecting societal change as do many in America with regard to our court system: If you can’t legitimately work to create laws or convince people of your cause, use the power of an institution (UN/courts) to impose your will.
Here’s an interesting take (warning: unchecked for veracity) on UN history.
Pip said,
December 7, 2004 @ 10:07 am
Editorial in today’s WSJ: On Planet U.N.: The Security Council provides no security.