Anne Bayefsky

Few people can pinpoint the many, many flaws of the UN as accurately as Anne Bayefsky can, as she's shown here and here. Sometimes taking on the UN must seem like a Quixotic enterprise. But I like to look at it more as a long-term goal.
Anyway, here's more of the brilliant Ms. Bayefsky on the UN and its lack of ability to deal with terrorism (although the "lack" has firm roots in the unwillingness of 1/3 of the UN's membership to do anything about terrorism, because they support terrorism, or support states who support terrorism. After all, one Muslim nation can't fault another, no can it?

For eight years the U.N. has been struggling to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. But it cannot finish the task because the OIC continues to hold out for an Israeli exclusion clause. Another round of bogus negotiations is scheduled for early October. No U.N. member state is prepared to change the rules and insist that a vote be called in the absence of consensus.

The upshot is one line on the U.N. website devoted to the definition of terrorism. It refers interested parties to the ongoing discussion over a terrorism convention that "would include a definition of terrorism if adopted."

The U.N.'s inability to identify a terrorist has real-life implications. In the last month, the Security Council has been faced with terrorist acts in Beslan, Russia, and in Israel. A recent bombing in Beersheva, Israel, claimed 16 lives and wounded 100 from a population of under seven million. The hostage-taking in Russia left 326 dead and 727 wounded out of a population of over 143 million. Proportionally, the trauma was as great in Israel.

There's no satisfaction to be gained from the fact that as far as the UN is concerned, Beslan was not a terrorist act because the UN is unable to define terrorism. Some 350 people are still dead, murdered by Muslim Psychopaths. About half of the victims were children. The real outrage should be that some people (in fact, a majority of people) will look to the UN to tell them who is a terrorist, who can build a fence, what dictator can continue murdering and killing and gassing. As long as the UN is either paralyzed or governed by the very worst specimens of the Human Race, decent countries should ignore the organization for the terrorist-enablers that they are.

On September 1 the Security Council adopted a presidential statement on behalf of the council as a whole concerning Beslan. It strongly condemned the attack, expressing the deepest sympathy with the people and government of Russia and urging all states to cooperate with Russian authorities in bringing to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the terrorist acts.

Of course the council couldn't mirror such calls when it came to Israeli victims, since the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of Palestinian terrorism start with Yasser Arafat and end in the protectorates of Damascus and Tehran. What happened to Resolution 1373?

Indeed. This demonstrated more than anything why the UN is inherently corrupt: Even Russia will side with the terrorists and against Israel, separating the issues where no such separation exists, because of economic and financial interests. As long as countries like Russia (but the US has done similar things) and France choose to side with parties they should never, EVER, under any condition side with, their citizens will pay the price. The Jihadists cannot be appeased.

To implement these obligations, 1373 gave birth to a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). The CTC then spawned 517 state reports about all the steps being taken to implement the resolution. Among them is the most recent report from Syria — headquarters of Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and others featured on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. It informs the Security Council about "procedures and measures adopted and in force in the Syrian Arab Republic aimed at the suppression....and prevention of terrorist crimes, and...the denial of safe haven, refuge, assistance or any form of help in the territory of...Syria."

A parallel universe, one in which the U.N.'s chief global response to 9/11 — the Counter-Terrorism Committee — has never managed to name a single terrorist organization or individual, or a singe state sponsor of terrorism.

A parallel universe. I wish. But I'm afraid not. No, it's really THIS universe where Human Rights organizations are chaired by Lybia, where countries like Syria can submit reports as mentioned above (and make an implicit exception for anyone murdering and slaughtering in the name of liberation and Allah), and where the leader of the UN would call the deposing of one of the worst dictators of the 2nd half of the 20th century "illegal". Making it clear anything was preferable to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent deposing of Saddam.

Why is ANY decent person in his right mind still talking with/to the UN?