Thursday, March 18, 2004


The WSJ op-ed page has been running a variety of pieces re the UN's Iraq oil-for-food sham. Other major outlets have, to this point, avoided the topic.

I have always wondered about the left's fascination with "the international community". Hans Blix noted on the Jim Lehrer news last night that a Security Council-sanctioned "action" (his word) in Iraq would have been "legitimate". Are all of the voting members at the UN (Security Council and other councils) "legitimate"? The last time I looked, some members in good standing countenanced slavery, repression, torture and all sorts of human rights abuses. Nevertheless, the Blix view is now part of the anti-war mantra.

Countries that respect human dignity have their differences, yet a consensus from this bloc would be a much more plausible basis for the label "legitimate". If there has to be a UN-type group, how about one without the thugs? How to screen them? The EU screens applicants, as does the OECD and many other international groups. Applicants have even been known to work on cleaning up their act. Imperfect and arguable but vastly preferable to today's UN.