On a daily basis, at a great many international and scholarly conferences all over the world, we can hear learned debates about human rights and emotional proclamations in their defense. So how is it possible that the international community remains incapable of responding effectively to dissuade Burma's military rulers from escalating the force that they have begun to unleash in Rangoon and its Buddhist temples?
For dozens of years, the international community has been arguing over how it should reform the United Nations so that it can better secure civic and human dignity in the face of conflicts such as those now taking place in Burma or Darfur, Sudan. It is not the innocent victims of repression who are losing their dignity, but rather the international community, whose failure to act means watching helplessly as the victims are consigned to their fate.
The world's dictators, of course, know exactly what to make of the international community's failure of will and inability to coordinate effective measures. How else can they explain it than as a complete confirmation of the status quo and of their own ability to act with impunity?
Václav Havel in yesterday’s Guardian: 
1 comment:
The problem, of course, is that petty squabbling far too often characterizes UN debate. It can pass resolutions admirably well but its failings to back them up are often glaringly visible. Building enough consensus to come up with one uniform plan of action is extremely difficult.
The UN is great concept on paper. In reality, it often is quite insufficient.
Post a Comment