Criticism and controversies

Security Council

Many perceive the United Nations as unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis. Examples include the Iranian nuclear program and the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Because the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no significant action is possible since no nation can practice unilateralism. Typically but not always this division includes the United States on one side with China and/or Russia on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to act, for example the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis. See Reform of the United Nations Security Council.

Human Rights oversight

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations, such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have demonstrably abysmal records on human rights, and also Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been in the past an issue. These countries, however, argued that Western countries, whom they accused of colonialist aggression and brutality, had no right to argue about membership of the Commission.

However on 15 March 2006 the General Assembly passed a resolution creating a new body - the United Nations Human Rights Council – to replace the Commission. The body has stricter rules for membership including a universal human rights review and an dramatic increase in the number of nations needed to elect a candidate to the body, from election-by-regional-slate on the 53-member Economic and Social Council to fully one-half of the 192 members of the General Assembly.

9 May 2006 saw the elections of 47 new members to the Council. While some governments with poor records were elected, such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan, the worst rights violators did not make it onto the new Council:

• States shunned by rights groups: Syria, North Korea, Belarus, and Burma
• States which had been members of the Commission: Zimbabwe, Sudan, Nepal, and Libya
• States which ran but did not receive enough votes: Iran, Venezuela, Thailand, Iraq, and Kyrgyzstan

Due to the changes in membership between the Commission and the Council, the number of states deemed "Not Free" by Freedom House was more than halved.

Bureaucratic inefficiency

The U.N. has been accused of inefficiency and waste due to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. During the 1990s the United States, currently the largest contributor to the U.N., gave this inefficiency as a reason for witholding their dues. The repayment of the dues was made conditional on a major reforms initiative. In 1994 the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was established by a ruling of the General Assembly to serve as an efficiency watchdog. A reform program has been proposed, but has not yet approved by the General Assembly.

Oil-for-Food scandal

The Oil-for-Food Programme was established by the UN in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs of ordinary Iraqi citizens who were affected by international economic sanctions, without allowing the Iraqi government to rebuild its military in the wake of the first Gulf War. It was discontinued in late 2003 amidst allegations of widespread abuse and corruption; the former director, Benon Sevan of Cyprus, first was suspended, then resigned from the UN, as an interim progress report of a UN-sponsored investigation led by Paul Volcker concluded that Sevan had accepted bribes from the Iraqi regime, and recommended that his UN immunity be lifted to allow for a criminal investigation.

Under UN auspices, over $65 billion USD worth of Iraqi oil was sold on the world market. Officially, about $46 billion was used for humanitarian needs, and additional revenue paid for Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund, UN administrative and operational costs for the Programme (2.2%), and the weapons inspection programme (0.8%).

Also implicated in the scandal is Kofi Annan's son Kojo Annan, alleged to have illegally procured UN Oil-for-Food contracts on behalf of the Swiss company Cotecna. India's foreign minister, Natwar Singh, was removed from office because of his role in the scandal.

The Australian government set up an inquiry known as the Cole Inquiry in November 2005 to investigate whether the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) breached any laws with its contracts with Iraq during the Oil-for-Food Programme. AWB paid Saddam Hussein's regime almost $300 million dollars, through a front company called 'Alia', to secure wheat contracts to Iraq. The Prime Minister (John Howard), Deputy Prime Minister (Mark Vaile), and Foreign Minister of Australia (Alexander Downer) have denied knowing about such bribes as they were called to the inquiry to give an account under oath about what they knew of AWB.

It has been suggested that, although the Australian Government did not monitor AWB effectively enough to notice and stop the bribes, that the UN should have been more forceful in requesting the Australian Government to start an Investigation earlier.

The result of the Cole Inquiry is not yet known.

The information is taken from Wikipedia.org under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.