UN “neutrality”?

The following letter in today’s Gazette questions the neutrality of the UN:

The consensus of opinion around the world is that no action should be taken against Iraq until such time as the UN arms inspectors uncover proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But can we trust the UN’s “neutrality” in this situation?

The UN has just appointed Iraq to chair its disarmament conference in Geneva next month (Gazette, Feb. 4). It appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission. It allowed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist, to address the General Assembly while openly carrying a weapon.

Where is the UN’s credibility as a neutral body supposedly promoting peace on our planet?

Aaron Muscott
Dollard des Ormeaux

Well, unfortunately, the UN has never had any credibility as a “neutral body”. This is old news. From the countless one-sided General Assembly resolutions against Israel, to the twisting of the concept of “human rights” to mean “rights for select humans”, the UN lost its credibility decades ago.

The problem is that most people seem unaware of this. The world is pressuring the United States to get UN approval before attacking Iraq, as though a rubber-stamp from the UN would mean that the attack is legitimate.

The UN needs to clean up its act – fast.