Criticism of the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Criticism of the United Nations has been ideologically diverse, although much of it is focused on the UN's purported inability to handle international conflicts, even on a small scale. Critics argue that this makes the UN Charter largely unenforceable. Other criticisms tend to focus on the UN's alleged elitism or its presumed support of globalized philosophies.

Philosophical and moral criticisms[edit]

Moral relativism[edit]

In 2004, former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold published a book called Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos. The book criticized what it called the organization's moral relativism in the face of (and occasional support of)[1] genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its founding period and the present day. While the UN during its founding period was limited to those nations that declared war on at least one of the Axis powers of World War II, and thus were capable of taking a stand against evil, the modern United Nations has, according to Gold, become diluted to the point where only 75 of the 184 member states during the time of the book's publication "were free democracies, according to Freedom House."[2] He further claimed that this had the effect of tipping the scales of the UN so that the organization as a whole was more amenable to the requirements of dictatorships.[2]

The UN General Assembly decided to hold a moment of silence in honor of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il following his death in 2011. Western diplomats criticized the decision. "An official at the Czech Republic's UN mission said the Czechs did not request a similar moment of silence for Václav Havel, the playwright-turned-dissident who died" a day after Kim.[3]

Allegations of globalism[edit]

There has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization and its activities since at least the 1950s. In the United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World Government."

Charles de Gaulle of France criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thingamabob"), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help in maintaining world peace, preferring that the UN direct defense treaties between countries.[4]

Debates surrounding population control and abortion[edit]

The United Nations Population Fund has been accused by different groups[who?] of providing support for government programs which have promoted forced-abortions and coercive sterilizations. Controversies regarding these allegations have resulted in a sometimes shaky relationship between the organization and the United States government, with three presidential administrations, that of Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush withholding funding from the UNFPA.

The UNFPA provided aid to Peru's population control program in the mid-to-late '90s, when it was discovered the Peruvian program had been engaged in carrying out coercive sterilizations. The UNFPA was not found directly involved in the scandal, but continued to fund and work with the population control program after the abuses had become public.[5] The issue played a role in the Bush administration's controversial decision in 2002 to cut off funding for the organization.[6]

Administrative criticisms[edit]

Role of elite nations[edit]

There has been criticism that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked. Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions: for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1997.[7]

Membership in the UN Security Council[edit]

Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization.[8] Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether; under the government of Paul Martin, Canada advocated this approach.[9]

Veto power[edit]

Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[10] Since candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs, the Arab League and its allies are usually included but Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council. The Council has repeatedly condemned Israel. On the other hand, critics contend that, while Israel has the United States to rely on to veto any pertinent legislation against it, the Palestinians lack any such power. Apart from the US, several resolutions have been vetoed by Russia, notably attempts to impose sanctions on Syria during the Syrian Civil War and to condemn Russia's own annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. As part of the Soviet Union, Russia also vetoed a UN resolution condemning the USSR's shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983.

Fait accompli[edit]

The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire; according to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members – North as well as South – have made very clear...their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."[11]

Democratic character of the UN[edit]

Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. World federalist Dieter Heinrich points out that the powerful Security Council system does not have distinctions between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches: the UN Charter gives all three powers to the Security Council.[12]

Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top seven largest arms exporting countries in the world.[13]

Effectiveness criticisms[edit]

Some have questioned whether the UN might be relevant in the 21st century.[14] While the UN’s first and second Charter mandates require the UN: “To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action,”[15] due to its restrictive administrative structure, the permanent members of the Security Council themselves have sometimes prevented the UN from fully carrying out its first two mandates.[16] Without the unanimous approval, support (or minimally abstention) of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN's Security Council, the UN's charter only enables it to "observe", report on, and make recommendations regarding international conflicts[citation needed]. Such unanimity on the Security Council regarding the authorization of armed UN enforcement actions has not always been reached in time to prevent the outbreak of international wars.[16] Even with all of these restraints and limitations in place on the UN’s abilities to respond to situations of conflict, still various studies have found the UN to have had many notable successes in the 65 years of its existence.

In 1962 UN secretary general U Thant provided valuable assistance and took a great deal of time, energy and initiative as the primary negotiator between Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, thus providing a critical link in the prevention of a nuclear Armageddon at that time.[17] A 2005 RAND Corporation study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace.[18] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism – mostly spearheaded by the UN – has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War or due to the fact the US and USSR were no longer pumping up oppressive governments after the Cold war ended.[19]

Diplomatic and political criticisms[edit]

Inability to prevent conflicts[edit]

Other critics and even proponents of the United Nations question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. An early example of this was the Bangladesh liberation war and the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army on Bengali Hindus. Critics of the UN argued that the UN was completely ineffective in preventing the genocide,[20] and that military intervention by India was the only thing to stop the mass murder.[21] Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder on the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a UN "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peace keepers, but the UN forces did nothing to prevent the massacre. In the 21st century, the most prominent and dramatic example is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. At the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key heavily criticized the UN's inaction on Syria, more than two years after the Syrian civil war began.[22]

Handling of the Cold War[edit]

In 1967, Richard Nixon, while running for President of the United States, criticized the UN as "obsolete and inadequate" for dealing with then-present crises like the Cold War.[23] Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in a 1983 opinion piece in The New York Times that the process of discussions at the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging" of the United States "than either a political debate or an effort at problem

Attention given to the Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

See also: UN Watch

Issues relating to the state of Israel, the Palestinian people and other aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict occupy a large amount of debate time, resolutions and resources at the United Nations. Critics such as Dore Gold, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Dreyfus, Robert S. Wistrich, Alan Keyes, and the Anti-Defamation League consider UN attention on Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be excessive.[24][25][26][27][28][29] According to Wistrich, "a third of all critical resolutions passed by [the UN] Human Rights Commission during the past forty years have been directed exclusively at Israel. By way of comparison, there has not been a single resolution even mentioning the massive violations of human rights in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Zimbabwe."[30]

The adoption of UNSCOP's recommendation to partition Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947[31] was one of the earliest decisions of the UN. According to political commentator Alan Dershowitz, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the UN defined the term "refugee" as applied to Palestinian Arabs fleeing Israel in significantly broader terms than it did for other refugees of other conflicts.[32]

In 2007, UN Human Rights Council president Doru Romulus Costea said that the UNHRC had "failed" in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[33]

The UN has sponsored several peace negotiations between the Israel and its neighbors, the latest being the 2002 Road map for peace. The controversial Resolution 3379 (1975), which equated Zionism with racism, was rescinded in 1991. According to Robert S. Wistrich, "on the same day Resolution 3379 was adopted, the General Assembly decided to establish the 'Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.' With a large budget at its disposal and acting as an integral part of the United Nations, it has for more than thirty years done everything within its power to establish a Palestinian state in place of Israel."[24]

Allegations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism[edit]

The UN has been accused by Dershowitz, human rights activists Elie Wiesel, Anne Bayefsky, and Bayard Rustin, historian Robert S. Wistrich, and feminists Phyllis Chesler and Sonia Johnson of tolerating antisemitic remarks within its walls.[24][27][34][35] Israeli delegates to the UN "have been treated to a sickening litany of anti-Semitic abuse at the General Assembly, in the UN Human Rights Commission, and sometimes even in the Security Council" for decades.[24]

UN conferences throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s often passed resolutions denouncing Zionism. These conferences often did not have anything to do with Middle East politics. UN documents of the period denied the existence of the Jewish people, the history of ancient Israel, the Holocaust, and the notion that Jews deserve the same rights granted to other groups.[36] Wistrich described the 1980 World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women in Copenhagen in his book, A Lethal Obsession:

"Jewish feminists heard truly chilling comments, such as 'The only good Jew is a dead Jew' and 'The only way to rid the world of Zionism is to kill all the Jews.' One eye-witness overheard other delegates saying that the American women's movement had a bad name because its most prominent founding figures ... were all Jewish. The feminist activist Sonia Johnson described the anti-Semitism at the Copenhagen conference as 'over, wild, and irrational.' ... The psychologist and author Phyllis Chesler recorded the savage response when one Jewish woman mentioned that her husband had been shot without a trial in Iraq and that she had to escape to Israel with her children. The place went wild: 'Cuba si! Yankee no! PLO! PLO!' they shouted. 'Israel kills babies and women. Israel must die.'"[24]

The most infamous example of this trend was the passage of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, on November 10, 1975. It was the first postwar ideology to ever be condemned in the United Nations' history. The resolution was internationally condemned in the media (especially in the media of Western countries). Many observers noted that the resolution was passed on the thirty-seventh anniversary of Kristallnacht, the pogrom historians agree marked the beginning of the Holocaust.

A UN sponsored conference was held in 2001 in Durban, South Africa. The conference was meant to combat racism, but ended up being a forum for world leaders to make various anti-Semitic statements.[37][38] Among the anti-Semitic literature freely handed out at the conference were cartoons equating the Nazi swastika with the Jewish Star of David, flyers expressing the wish that Adolf Hitler had completely killed every last Jew on Earth, and copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[39][40] Tom Lantos, Colin Powell, Charles Schumer, Elie Wiesel, Irwin Cotler, Alan Dershowitz, and Robert S. Wistrich condemned the entire conference, calling it hateful, racist, and anti-Semitic.[27][41]

Alleged support for Palestinian militancy[edit]

According to Dore Gold, Alan Dershowitz, and Robert S. Wistrich, the United Nations has a long history of elevating what it calls "national liberation movements," armed groups who commit violence against civilians to achieve political goals, virtually to the status of civilians.[27][42][43] In 1974 and again in 1988, the UN invited Yasser Arafat to address the General Assembly.[42][44][45][46] Alan Dershowitz accused the UN of allowing states that sponsor terrorism to sit on the Security Council.[47] These visits legitimized the PLO without it "having to renounce terrorism."[48]

In July 1976, Palestinian and German terrorists hijacked an Air France plane headed from France to Israel, landed it in Uganda, and threatened to kill the civilian hostages. Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada provided sanctuary for the terrorists in the Entebbe airport. After Israel raided the Ugandan airport and saved most of the hostages, United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim "condemned Israel" for the violation of "Ugandan sovereignty."[49]

Alan Dershowitz stated that while Tibetans, Kurds, and Turkish Armenians all desire "national liberation," the United Nations has only officially recognized Palestinian claims to "national liberation" and allows representatives of the Palestinian cause to speak at the UN.[50] The difference between the three groups and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians use terrorism as a tactic for getting their voice heard, while the Tibetans and Turkish Armenians do not.[50] The UN, according to Dershowitz, favors "national liberation" groups who practice terrorism above those who do not, including those people who have been under more brutal occupation for a longer time (such as Tibetans). Dershowitz has accused the UN of allowing its refugee camps in the Palestinian territories to be used as terrorist bases.[27]

UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure[edit]

A review of UN action during the final months of the Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009, in which tens of thousands of people were killed, criticized the UN leadership, UN Security Council and top UN officials in Sri Lanka. UN staff were afraid to publicize widespread killings, top UN leaders did not intervene and the 15-member Security Council did not give "clear" orders to protect civilians, said the report.[51]

The review, led by former UN official Charles Petrie, said senior UN staff in Sri Lanka were afraid to highlight deaths because they feared it would put at risk humanitarian access to the hundreds of thousands of civilians in the region. UN staff in Sri Lanka and New York failed to "confront" the government about obstacles to humanitarian assistance and were unwilling to "address government responsibility for attacks that were killing civilians." Rights groups have given a toll of up to 40,000 dead with most killed in army shelling.[51]

The report said UN headquarters' talks with the 193 member states "were heavily influenced by what it perceived member states wanted to hear, rather than what member states needed to know if they were to respond." Turning to the Security Council, the report said the body had been "deeply ambivalent" about putting Sri Lanka on its conflict agenda.[51]

Philippe Bolopion, UN director for Human Rights Watch, said the report highlighted a "dereliction of duty" and was "a call to action and reform for the entire UN system."[51]

Criticisms of scandals[edit]

Oil-for-Food Programme scandal[edit]

In addition to criticism of the basic approach, the Oil-for-Food Programme suffered from widespread corruption and abuse. Throughout its existence, the programme was dogged by accusations that some of its profits were unlawfully diverted to the government of Iraq and to UN officials.[52]

Peacekeeping child sexual abuse scandal[edit]

Reporters witnessed a rapid increase in prostitution in Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN and, in the case of the latter two, NATO peacekeeping forces moved in. In the 1996 UN study The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, former first lady of Mozambique Graça Machel documented: "In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution." [53]

In 2011, a United Nations spokesman confirmed 16 Beninese peacekeepers were barred from serving with them following a year-long probe. Of the 16 soldiers involved, 10 were commanders. They failed to maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and abuse. Sexual misconduct by United Nations troops had earlier been reported in Congo, Cambodia and Haiti, as well as in an earlier incident involving Moroccan peacekeepers in Côte d'Ivoire.[54]

Accountability[edit]

In regards to criticism of corruption within the UN system by its employees, James Wasserstrom was dismissed from his field job for reporting kickbacks taken by UN employees. Upon appeal, the UN was directed to compensate him with US$65,000 for the wrongful dismissal.[55]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Gold, pp. 216–217.
  2. ^ a b Gold, p. 31.
  3. ^ "UN honors North Korea's Kim Jong-il." Ynetnews. 22 December 2011. 23 December 2011.
  4. ^ Gerbet, Pierre (1995). "Naissance des Nations Unies". Espoir (in French) (102). 
  5. ^ [1][dead link]
  6. ^ Mosher, Steve (19 August 2002). "Bush stops funds for UNFPA abuses; the U.N. population fund supports forced abortions and sterilizations". Insight on the News. 
  7. ^ Rajan, Chella (2006). "Global Politics and Institutions PDF (449 KB)". Frontiers of a Great Transition. Vol. 3. Tellus Institute, p. 3.
  8. ^ "India makes strong case for UNSC expansion". HindustanTimes.com. 13 November 2005. Archived from the original on 2007-09-08. 
  9. ^ "Statement by Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock on Security Council Reform". Global Policy Forum. 12 July 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-08. 
  10. ^ John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Harvard University. Retrieved 2007-09-08. 
  11. ^ Empowering the Peoples in their United Nations – UN Reform – Global Policy Forum. Globalpolicy.org (1994-12-02). Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  12. ^ Creery, Janet (1994). Read the fine print first: Some questions raised at the Science for Peace conference on UN reform. Peace Magazine. Jan–February 1994. p. 20. Retrieved on 2007-12-07.
  13. ^ Top List TIV Tables-SIPRI. Armstrade.sipri.org. Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  14. ^ "Bush Discusses Relevance/ Irrelevance of UN". 2002. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  George W. Bush addressing the UN, questioning the relevance of the UN if it will not authorize a US invasion of Iraq.
  15. ^ "Article". 1945. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  Excerpt of Articles 1 & 2 of the United Nations Charter
  16. ^ a b "The United Nations, Its Development During the Cold War". 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  Political scientist Ragnor Muller summarizes the development of the UN during the Cold War years.
  17. ^ "The Cuban Missile Crisis Resolved: The Untold Story of an Unsung Hero". 2007. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  Recently discovered documentation of Secretary General U-Thant’s critical role in resolving the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis.
  18. ^ "The UN's Role in Nation Building: From the Congo to Iraq". 2005. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  A Rand Corporation historical comparative survey of UN peacekeeping work.
  19. ^ "The 2005 Human Security Report". 2005. Retrieved 14 January 2011.  A detailed historical analysis of UN effectiveness in preventing wars.
  20. ^ Ball, Howard (2011). Genocide: A Reference Handbook. ABC Clio. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-59884-488-7. 
  21. ^ Lee, Steven P. (2011). Ethics and War: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-521-72757-0. 
  22. ^ Key compromises on UN Syria deal. 3 News NZ. 28 September 2013.
  23. ^ "The Nixon Administration and the United Nations: 'It's a Damned Debating Society'", Dr. Edward C. Keefer (PDF).
  24. ^ a b c d e Wistrich, pp. 471–483.
  25. ^ Alan Keyes quoted in Yohanan Manor, To Right a Wrong: The Revocation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 Defaming Zionism (New York: Shengold Publishers, 1996), p. 171. qtd. in Wistrich, p. 484.
  26. ^ Gold, p. 20.
  27. ^ a b c d e Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
  28. ^ "Don’t be lynch mob, lawyers urge U.N.." JTA. 8 July 2009. 8 July 2009.
  29. ^ "ADL: UN Human Rights Council Resolution Reveals 'Cancerous Bias' Against Israel." ADL. 7 July 2009.
  30. ^ Wistrich, p. 487.
  31. ^ Dynamics of Self-determination in Palestine, P. J. I. M. de Waart, BRILL, 1994, p. 121.
  32. ^ Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Israel. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. pp. 86–87.
  33. ^ Shamir, Shlomo. "UN human rights chief: We failed in handling Israel-PA conflict." Haaretz. 30 September 2007. 7 July 2009.
  34. ^ "Transcripts." CNN 6 August 2004.
  35. ^ Bayefsky, Anne. "Extra." 21 June 2004. 7 July 2009.
  36. ^ Rep. William Lehman of Florida, March 11, 1981, Congressional Record—Extension of Remarks, E993. Lehman incorporated a text by Harris O. Schoenberg, "Anti-semitism at the U.N.," first presented in New York on March 10, 1981. qtd. in Wistrich, p. 480.
  37. ^ Jordan, Michael J. "Jewish Activists Stunned by Hostility, Anti-Semitism at Durban Conference." United Jewish Communities. 5 September. 1 September 2009.
  38. ^ Spitzer, Maya. "Swiss Jews worried by pre-Durban II anti-Semitism spike." Jerusalem Post. 12 May 2009. 1 September 2009.
  39. ^ Wistrich, p. 486.
  40. ^ Amiel, Barbara. "Fighting racism? This will have the opposite effect." Telegraph.co.uk. 3 September 2001.
  41. ^ Wistrich, p. 207.
  42. ^ a b Wistrich, pp. 468–469.
  43. ^ "The UN's new position could only be understood by those who regarded themselves as members of 'national liberation movements' as a license to commit murder in the name of the cause of self-determination. The UN ... had taken the first step toward legitimizing global terror" (Gold, p. 37).
  44. ^ Gold, p. 38.
  45. ^ Israel Rejects UN Resolution on Yasser Arafat. Globalpolicy.org (2003-09-21). Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  46. ^ Yasser Arafat, Speech at UN General Assembly. Mondediplo.com. Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  47. ^ Dershowitz, Alan M. (2005). The case for peace: how the Arab-Israeli conflict can be resolved. John Wiley. p. 148. ISBN 978-1-4193-5797-8. "The U.N. has allowed states that sponsor terrorism to sit on the Security Council and chair various important committees, while denying Israel these same rights." 
  48. ^ Wistrich, p. 483.
  49. ^ Dershowitz, Preemption, 91
  50. ^ a b Dershowitz, Alan M. "Terror Stings Its Pal, the U.N." "Los Angeles Times", Thursday, August 28, 2003.
  51. ^ a b c d "UN admits Sri Lanka civil war failure". United Nations. 
  52. ^ Oil-for-food chief 'took bribes'. BBC News (2005-08-08). Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  53. ^ The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. United Nations. 26 August 1996.
  54. ^ UN peacekeepers 'traded food for sex with underage girls' in west Africa. Dailymail.co.uk (2011-09-02). Retrieved on 2012-07-12.
  55. ^ http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/un-ordered-compensate-whistleblower

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Carpenter, Ted Gallen, ed. Delusions of Grandeur: the United Nations and Global Intervention. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1997. ISBN 1-882577-49-3