Tower of Babble

I just saw the author of this book interviewed on the Daily Show. He makes the point about the lack of standards in the admitting procedures in the United Nations, particularly with reference to the security council. He raises a point: 'It turns out that Syria, even though it supported international terrorism, was accepted to be a member of the security council in the year two-thousand. What are you supposed to do to be on the security council? What do you do on the security council? You're supposed to safeguard international peace and security. So Syria, who has been on the terrorism list since the 1970s, is safeguarding international peace and security. It gets admitted to the number one club in the UN - the security council. No standards'.

This is an undeniably valid point - but why raise the issue of Syria? Why not raise the issue that all five PERMANENT members of the security council have committed acts that, by any objective measure, are terrorist acts? Why not raise the fact that the United States has vetoed a security council resolution calling for the termination of its use of unlawful force against Nicaragua? Why not raise the fact that the US has been responsible for any number of vetoes of resolutions conndeming Israeli terrorist actions?

There's no denying that the UN is a flawed organisation - but let's not pick on the 'usual suspects' just because the prevailing orthodoxy makes them acceptable targets.