The merits of any governing body are reflected in its internal structure, and how it applies its authority over its own subjects.
On the first point, the UN is principally governed by the permanent members of the Security Council (the “mafia”), made up of the five most powerful nations in the world. From their privileged position, the mafia bosses preach about the sanctity of international law to the rest of the peasants in the General Assembly; which has no legislative or executive powers. The bosses make and then enforce international laws upon the peasants, but not upon themselves and the power of the veto guarantee that.
This is why when I hear Bush citing UN resolutions or international law it sounds as sincere as Ariel Sharon on the same subject. For is it not warped US foreign policy and their veto, that has made a mockery of both International Law and UN resolutions. In any case, both Bush and Sharon on this subject conjures up the picture of a pair of flatulent water buffalo, none too pleasant, a noise and smell best avoided.
As for the second point of assessing how the UN has applied its authority, we need ask the following two questions:
(a).Does the organisation show consistency by bringing the strong as well as the weak to account?
(b).Has the organisation treated each case in a chronological order instead of being selective?
The UN has failed miserably on both accounts. Just compare the selective enforcement of the UN resolutions in Iraq with the vast number of UN resolutions that have been sitting on the shelf since the inception of the UN. It does not even blink an eye when Israel and the other powerful nations flout UN resolutions and international laws. Now the UN is selectively pursuing Sudan for war crimes, in Darfur through the ICC (International Criminal Court), while remaining blind to the war crimes in Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Uzbekistan and India (Gujarat).
Now let us consider chronology, first of all, the UN should have pursued the war crimes committed against Sudan in 1998, when the US bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. They alleged that it was producing chemical weapons, when in fact independent journalists confirmed baby milk powder production. We could safely say that claim was as accurate as the claims of Iraq’s WMDs. Instead of addressing the genuine grievances of Sudan, the UN has initiated an attempt to get some 50 key suspects from Sudan to be tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague while remaining oblivious to the war criminals in Washington and London, confirming the imperialist nature of the UN organisation.
The organisation (UN) has always served the powerful mafia bosses and their cohorts, while persecuting the poorer nations of the world. Kofi Anan, the UN General Secretary, eventually spelt out, in unequivocal terms, that the war on Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter; hence the subsequent deaths of the Iraqis and the coalition forces are a clear criminal act, according to the UN Charter. But no prosecution will be issued against the real criminals.
The western media have painted a simplistic picture of the events in Darfur: the Sudanese government and the Arab militia called the Janjaweed are persecuting the non-Arab Africans. It makes scant reference to the initial uprising by the inhabitants of Darfur, as if the rebellion is somehow legitimate. Nor is there any mention or refuting of the Sudanese claim that foreign powers, like Israel and the US, providing support to the rebels to continue the fighting, fanning the flames. By making one-sided demands upon the Sudanese government to cease military operations, against the rebellion, the UN is openly supporting the rebels and consequently division of the country. On this same basis, why could the UN not have supported the Irish Catholics, in occupied Northern Ireland, to eject their British rulers?
To preserve the integrity of the nation, Sudan has the right to act in accordance with the international laws. The Russians did this in Chechnya even though they exceeded legal limits by committing wanton violations of human rights, on a huge scale; the UN took no action against Russia. What perverse reasoning by the UN, finds it acceptable for the US to fight rebellions in distant lands, like Iraq, but not for the Sudanese to do the same in their own territory? The reality is war crimes charges are really reserved for the poorer nations i.e. the peasants, and especially those who pose a challenge to the “mafias” interests.
What is even more amazing is that the UN can quote figures of atrocities in the remote region of Darfur, but not the mass casualties occurring in Iraq, under the control of the Americans? How is it that the US being present and in control of Iraq does not have any idea about the civilian and non-civilian casualties, yet it claims to know about the figures in Darfur? The world will see the claims of these figures, as accurate, as the US claims of Iraq’s WMDs, i.e. another US “whopper”.
Mr Collin Powell, with other US officials, has accused the Sudanese government of presiding over genocide, but how can we take the testimony of a proven liar. Is he not the same Colin Powell that gave the infamous PowerPoint presentation to the UN to justify the cruel aggression against Iraq? Powell is the mouthpiece for a murderous nation that has continued to commit genocide in Iraq for the last decade. Let us see some real evidence for a change. So, where are the pictures of the mass graves and bodies in Darfur? I suppose they have shrunk like the alleged mass graves of Saddam Hussein after the US invasion! No surprise that we don’t tend to hear about them as much as we did prior to the invasion!
Real evidence of deliberate mass murder or mass rape does not exist. This does not mean that atrocities have not occurred, but as with conflicts all over the globe, they are occurring on both sides, and it has become a tit for tat cycle of attack and reprisal. Casualty figures cited for the two-year war vary between 10,000 and 180,000, depending on who you listen to. However, international aid workers  clearly dispute the US propaganda and one European diplomat accused the US of “plucking figures from the air” to pursue its goals in the region, which allegedly includes another regime change (dÃ©jÃ vu anyone?).
What other interest lies in the remote region of Darfur? Firstly, exaggerating the figures serves as a good diversion from the US-led atrocities being committed in Iraq, on a daily basis. Secondly, it’s that favoured precursor to regime change, oil (Texas ‘T’ for our good ole boys). Even CNN is referring to Darfur as oil-rich . Yes, a Swiss company has already begun drilling for oil in Darfur, where preliminary studies showed there were "abundant" quantities of oil and other precious minerals.
Similarly after oil was discovered in Bentiu in southern Sudan, the civil war broke out in 1983, in the south involving government forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang. When the peace treaty was finally made between SPLA and the Sudanese government, the oil revenue was divided between the two sides in equal halves.
According to Mohamed Issam, a Sudanese political analyst, he also refers to oil as being an underlying factor for the conflict: "If you look back to the original demands made by the rebels at the start of the rebellion, they were asking for 80 percent of Darfur’s oil wealth". Work on the first Darfur oil well, southwest of El-Fasher in North Darfur State, is under way.
Hence, the oil is an important underlying reason  for the conflict and it has acted as a catalyst increasing the existing tensions in the region. This in part explains the interest generated by the West for that region. Why is everyone so cynical of the US? Perhaps they see intervention in oil-rich regions like Iraq, but not in Palestine, Rwanda, India (Gujarat massacre) apartheid South Africa etc.
Another reason is strategic, an independent Darfur, could nicely accommodate a US base, that has access to so many targets in the region, all aiding the US in its war against Islam (terror). There may be other reasons but what is for certain, is that the US has exaggerated the conflict and none but the most gullible believe that the US desire to act is for altruistic reasons. If the US is acting to prevent genocide, where were they when oil-deficient Rwanda imploded? I guess the answer is in the question!
Related Link (External):