I feel like going a bit more global today, given what I've been reading.



This article in the NY Times (registration required, but it's free) is titled: "In Sudan, Militiamen on Horses Uproot a Million".



Key quotes:



"Hawa Muhammad, 15, lost just about everything when the men on horseback came. They took her family's horses, donkeys and small herd of goats and sheep. They took her cooking pots and her clothing. They took her mother and her father, too. 'The men on horses killed my parents,' she said, referring to the Janjaweed, loose bands of Arab fighters. 'Then the planes came.' Now it is she to whom her six younger sisters turn when their bellies rumble. She recounted her tale as if in a trance. . .



Hawa's account of how the attack unfolded is the same as those heard in camp after camp across Darfur, as well as the settlements across the border in the desert of eastern Chad, where the United Nations estimates another 100,000 villagers have streamed.



Many were driven away by the Janjaweed, a few thousand uniformed militia men who have worked with government soldiers and aerial bombardments to purge villages of their darker-skinned black African inhabitants. . . .



Human rights groups and international officials charge that the Janjaweed have been used as a tool of the government to pursue a radical policy resembling ethnic cleansing.



The United Nations, which conducted its own tour of Darfur last week, said the crisis in western Sudan would last another 18 months — if the government managed to disarm the men on horseback soon.



But it remains to be seen whether the lawlessness will be tamed. . . ."



The second story is from CNN. Key quotes:



"African nations have ensured that Sudan will keep its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, a decision that angered the United States and human rights advocates who cited reports of widespread rights abuses by the Khartoum government.



A coalition of 10 organizations concerned with human rights issues went further Monday, complaining that too few democracies are being nominated for seats on the commission.



In elections Tuesday for 14 seats on the main U.N. human rights watchdog, the coalition said three out of four African seats will be filled by non-democratic regimes -- Sudan, Guinea and Togo. In Asia, Vietnam and Pakistan, which both have questionable human rights records, are vying for seats and at least one will be elected, it said.



Under U.N. rules, regional groups decide which countries are nominated to fill seats on U.N. bodies."





Sudan is going to stay on the Human Rights Commission? This is the same Sudan where the government stonewalled Human Rights Watch efforts to investigate and end slavery, and not in 1794 or 1850, but in 2002? The same Sudan in which apostasy from Islam carries a death sentence? Where a pregnant woman was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery under sharia law - when she wasn't even Christian?



Given my profession, I believe strongly in having the legitimate authority for any given action, preferably granted by a fairly elected representative body. When the Iraq situation arose last year, I was in favor of working through the UN to resolve the WMD issue on that basis, as it's the closest thing to a world-wide legitimate "authority" we have even though its technical status is debatable.



But according to the CNN article, regional areas that wish to engage in aggregious violations of human rights are able to band together into coalitions on the UN council and impose the candidates of their choice - i.e. Sudan on the Human Rights Commission. Therefore, the legal legitimacy of the UN as an authority is being rightly called into question, as these candidate's actions violate the purposes of the UN itself:



CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

. . .

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and. . .



I reviewed the requirements for membership in the UN in general, since it appears that member nations in the UN simply elect nations to fill slots on the Human Rights Council. I found the following:



CHAPTER II

MEMBERSHIP

Article 4

1.Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. . . .



Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.



It appears that a nation must not violate the Principles of the UN in order to remain or become a member. But the language regarding respect for human rights is in the Purpose section of the UN Charter, not the Principles section. Therefore, it is apparently not required that members grant their citizens any human rights, even at the most basic level. In addition, nations such as the Sudan are not democratic governments, but dictatorships imposed on the people. So groups of dictators can legitimately choose to band together within the UN to preserve their "right" to inflict horrific human rights violations upon whichever race/religion/sex/etc. is the persona non grata of the week? And that's our "legitimate" international governmental body?



Given the length of this post, I won't go into the corruption in the Iraq oil-for-food program and the subsequent speculation that financial interests were what motivated UN amassadors to prefer indefinite continuation of the WMD inspections, rather than authorizing a final deadline after which UN member's forces would reenter Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein's government.



The civics professor in my brain keeps reminding me that this is pure democracy at work - the good, the bad, and the ugly figuring out a way to get along. On the other hand, that's why we're a republic, and not a democracy: authority derived solely through mass meeting or other form of "direct" expression results in mob rule of public affairs without respect to law, precedents, or vested rights. I still believe that if we're going to live on this planet without destroying one another we've got to come up with a legitimate international authority that can fulfill at least the limited role of the United Nations and itsInternational Court of Justice, and ultimately in the distant future, a true world government. But when the legitimacy of the UN organization itself is called into question by the practices of its members, it must either be reformed or scrapped and rebuilt.