Support for United Nations Justifiably Weakened by Financial, Sex and Human Rights Scandals, by Ryan Balis

“Never in the history of the United Nations have bold decisions been more necessary,” remarked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the 60th anniversary of the signing of the U.N. Charter in 2005.1 In an ironic way, Annan is correct: The need to make bold decisions about the proper role and moral purpose of the U.N. has never been more acute.

The esteem in which the American public holds the U.N. is sinking.  In the opinion of an increasing number of Americans, the U.N. not only assaults U.S. national sovereignty but also is a corrupt and incompetent organization.  A June 2005 survey by pollster Scott Rasmussen found 42 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of the U.N.2  In February 2006, Gallup’s World Affairs survey found a near-historical low of only 30 percent of Americans surveyed agreeing that the United Nations is doing “a good job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face.”3  Similarly, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found Americans’ support for the U.N. at its lowest level in 14 years.4

What explains Americans’ increasingly unfavorable view of the U.N. are an embarrassing and alarming number of serious scandals.  The U.N. has been embroiled in an unprecedented degree of controversy in recent years, including the Oil-for-Food scandal, widespread sexual abuse by U.N. peace workers and a record of ineffectually protecting basic human rights.  These scandals show that the U.N. is a deeply flawed organization in desperate need of serious reform.

U.N. Corruption and Ineptness Leads to Oil-for-Food Scandal

The scandal leaving the blackest mark on the U.N. is the Oil-for-Food scandal.  After the ousting of Saddam’s Iraq in 2003, accusations emerged that the Iraqi government, politicians from the U.N. and various nations, as well as companies doing business with Iraq, illegally profited from the sale of Iraqi oil.  According to the U.N.-backed inquiry into Oil-for-Food corruption charges, “Iraq manipulated the [Oil-for-Food] Programme to dispense contracts on the basis of political preference and to derive illicit payments from companies that obtained oil and humanitarian goods contracts.”5

The Oil-for-Food program was set up in 1995 to provide temporary but urgent medical and nutritional aid to Iraqi citizens suffering under U.N.-imposed sanctions.  Managed by the U.N. Office of the Iraq Programme, the program established the selling of “oil to finance the purchase of humanitarian goods, and various mandated United Nations activities concerning Iraq.”  The U.N. Security Council voted in favor of Resolution 986 on April 14, 1995 to establish Oil-for-Food, and the program was disbanded in 2003 after the coalition invasion of Iraq.6

According to an encyclopedia-length report into Oil-for-Food’s manipulation,7 an inquiry led by former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, the massive scope of the multi-billion dollar financial fraud is dizzying: $1.8 billion in illicit kickbacks from companies collected by Saddam’s Iraq; illegal financial kickbacks from 66 U.N. member states; illicit surcharges by 40 U.N. member states; illegal oil surcharges paid to 139 companies and “humanitarian kickbacks” involving 2,253 companies worldwide.8  The vast majority of kickbacks involved the disguised sale of humanitarian goods in which contractors paid inflated “transportation fees” and “after sales services charges.”9   

The report highlights Iraq’s abuse of its oil wealth for the apparent intention of influencing the foreign policy of such states as Russia, which received $19 billion in oil contracts, and France, which received $4.4 billion.  The British parliamentarian George Galloway has been accused by Volcker’s committee and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of profiting through the allocation of over 18 million barrels of oil made in his name or that of his associates.10  India’s then-Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, along with the governing Congress Party, has been named by Volcker’s committee as allegedly facilitating an allotment of four million barrels of oil to a Swiss energy contractor, Masefield AG.11  In December 2005,12 Singh resigned his cabinet post in the Indian government after being stripped of his ministerial duties by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (no relation).13

The Volcker report also accuses U.N. staff members not only of faulty management but also of directly participating in the fraud.  The Volcker report cites evidence that U.N. officials, including Hans Von Sponeck, the former humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, solicited money from companies seeking to do business in Iraq.14  Moreover, Benon Sevan, the former director of Oil-for-Food in Iraq, has been accused of accepting nearly $150,000 in cash bribes from December 1998 to January 2002 to allocate oil sales from Iraq to a favored company with ties to former U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali.15  Even Annan’s own son, Kojo Annan, has been investigated and accused of lying about his work with a U.N. contractor that had a $10-million-a-year contract to monitor Oil-for-Food shipments to Iraq.16

The investigation into the scandal also netted corruption outside the Oil-for-Food program.  In August 2005, Alexander Yakovlev, a former U.N. procurement officer from Russia, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud and accepting nearly $1 million in bribes from a Swiss company bidding for oil business in Iraq.17

According to Volcker, blame for not preventing Saddam Hussein’s manipulation and $1.8 billion extraction in kickbacks and bribes falls squarely on inept U.N. administration.18  “Corruption of the program by Saddam and many participants could not have been nearly so pervasive with more disciplined management by the United Nations,” Volcker told the General Assembly in October.  For instance, “little action” was taken when “oil overseers” warned that a 50-cent surcharge for Iraqi crude oil Saddam wished to charge in 2000 was illegal.19 The wide latitude Hussein had to decide how much to charge for the oil and who to sell it to made it easy for him to manipulate the program.20  “There were provisions in the program and in its management and oversight that should have permitted it to be caught,” said Volcker.  According to Volcker’s report, the Banque Nationale de Paris held a major account for the program and issued letters of credit, but the bank did not properly inform the U.N. of its “firsthand knowledge it acquired of the true nature of financial relationships that fostered the payment of illicit surcharges.”21

To guard against future abuse of U.N. programs, Volcker recommended “fundamental and wide-ranging administrative reform,” including a chief oversight officer and body, to prevent future abuse of U.N. programs.  “At stake is whether [this] organization will be able to act effectively,” warned Volcker.22


Human Rights: Selecting Foxes to Guard the Henhouse

As a response to the Holocaust, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was formed in 1946.23  The Commission’s work produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the General Assembly unanimously adopted in 1948.24  The Declaration’s 30 articles delineated such fundamental rights as social and political freedom, equal protection of the law, freedom of speech and assembly and the right to own property.  The Declaration also prohibits slavery, torture, discrimination and arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Despite the ideals outlined in the Declaration, in practice the U.N. is an ineffective advocate for human rights.  Under the model that the U.N. used, any member country might gain a seat on the Human Rights Commission with equal voting power, regardless of record of violating human rights.25  As The Heritage Foundation’s Joseph Loconte noted before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa, “It is a regrettable, yet widely recognized fact: Repressive governments seek membership on the Commission to escape scrutiny and censure.”26

On the now defunct 53-member Commission of Human Rights (which the General Assembly voted in March 2006 to replace with a new Human Rights Council)27 were an alarming number of countries with poor human rights records such as Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nepal.28  In 2004,29 Sudan was reelected as a member in good standing despite then-Secretary of State Colin Powell declaring before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Sudanese government had failed to stop genocide in the country’s Darfur region.30  Since 1997, the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Sudan because of its government’s ties to international terrorism and human rights violations, including slavery, denial of religious freedom and human trafficking.31  “When this great institution’s member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization,” said President Bush to the General Assembly.  “If member countries want the United Nations to be respected – respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.”32

While some of the world’s most oppressive regimes were included on the Human Rights Commission, politics resulted in some great defenders of human rights being removed from the Commission.  For instance, in 2001, the United States was voted off the Commission for the first time since the Commission’s inception.  Western countries opposing the U.S. stance on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change as well as developing countries voted together in bloc to protest the U.S.,33 a decision scorned in America.

It is doubtful the Human Rights Council will be any improvement over the Commission.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice decided early on that the U.S. would not seek membership on the body in 2006 because of concerns that its criteria for membership did not do enough to prevent abusive members from gaining a seat.34  The U.S. voted against the new body’s creation in March of 2006, as the U.S.’s suggestion that members be elected by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, a higher threshold, was not included in reform efforts.35  Under the adopted Council rules, any U.N. member state may seek a candidacy and be elected with an absolute majority of the U.N. members – 96 votes.  As a result, the 47 countries that were elected by the General Assembly in May of 2006 to the Council include some of the same countries with dismal human rights records that were on the Commission: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Russia and Pakistan.36


Emboldening Executioners

The U.N. has been incapable of preventing some of the most gruesome human rights violations in the 20th century.  In one well-publicized failure, at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica by General Ratko Mladic’s Bosnian Serb army.37  The U.N. had intervened in the Balkans conflict in 1993 to establish one of five “safe havens.”   Yet, a thinly-spread force consisting of 350 light-armored Dutch peacekeeping troops did not protect – nor deter – Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning Srebrenica and committing what has been described as the worst massacre in Europe in half a century.38

According to a 1999 U.N. investigative report, the U.N. Security Council failed to authorize an adequate number of peacekeeping troops to defend the safe areas.  The 7,600 troops sent to the areas in 1993 were a token number compared to the 34,000 troops recommended by the U.N.’s peacekeeping force commander, Lieutenant-General Philippe Morillon.  The report says then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali contended that the threat of air strikes was a sufficient deterrent against any safe area assault.39  The assumption was shown to be incorrect when the Bosnian Serb army ignored the peacekeeping presence and overran Srebrenica in July 1995.  Four months later, the Security Council voted to permit 60,000 NATO troops to enforce the November 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and to relieve the U.N. peacekeepers present.40

David Rohde, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with the Christian Science Monitor, delivered a stinging critique of the U.N.’s handling of Srebrenica:

The international community partially disarmed thousands of men, promised them they would be safeguarded and then delivered them to their sworn enemies.  Srebrenica was not simply a case of the international community standing by as a far-off atrocity was committed.  The actions of the international community encouraged, aided, and emboldened the executioners… The fall of Srebrenica did not have to happen.  There is no need for thousands of skeletons to be strewn across eastern Bosnia.41

This year marked the 12th anniversary of an enormous U.N. failure: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.42  An estimated 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 100 days in a systematic government-sponsored slaughter.43  Except for a token number of U.N. peacekeeping troops sent, inaction largely ruled the day at the U.N. as Rwanda was turned into a killing field.

The Rwandan genocide occurred on the heels of the U.N.-ordered mission in Somalia the year before that left 18 American Rangers and 312 Somali dead.44  Remembering images of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu to cheering mobs, President Bill Clinton was reluctant to send American troops or supplies to Rwanda to stop the genocide.45  Moreover, then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali says in a PBS documentary that he requested additional forces but “nobody wanted to send troops.”46

Perhaps only 5,000 soldiers were needed, according to Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander of the United Nations Mission to Rwanda.47  Yet the Security Council rejected Dallaire’s plan for a determined military presence and ordered him not to intervene in the conflict.48  After ten Belgian peacekeeping soldiers were ambushed and butchered, Belgium withdrew its roughly 2,500 troops.49  Five weeks into the genocide, the 5,000 U.N. (mainly African) troops and 50 U.S. armored personnel carriers eventually authorized by the U.N. were of little consequence.  The death toll had already counted over 300,000 Rwandans, and the slaughter continued for another eight weeks.50

Sex Scandals

Another U.N. scandal involves allegations of sexual misconduct.  There have been 221 investigations of sexual misconduct by U.N. civilian and military peacekeepers from February 2003 to October 2005.51  A 2002 classified U.N. report characterized the problem of sexual misconduct in West African nations by U.N. personnel and representatives as “widespread,” with evidence of pedophilia, prostitution and rape at gunpoint.  Although allegations of sexual abuse stretch back to U.N. peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea,52 allegations of sexual misconduct doubled from 2003 to 2004.53  Some incidents include:

*     In December 2004, a French U.N. logistics expert in the Democratic Republic of Congo was arrested for making pornographic videos with young girls.  When police arrested the man, they found a 12-year-old-girl he was allegedly about to rape as well as some 50 photographs in his home.  In May 2005, four Nepalese soldiers flew home from the Congo to face charges of sexual abuse stemming from 2003.54

*     According to the London Times, two Russian U.N. peacekeeping pilots based in Mbandaka, a city in the western part of Congo, allegedly taped sex sessions with minors and paid them with jars of mayonnaise and jam.   The men accused have since fled to Russia.55

*     A Moroccan peacekeeping unit in Kisangani, a city in the northern part of Congo, allegedly hid one soldier accused of rape in its barracks for a year.  Moreover, two U.N. officials – one from Canada and the other from Ukraine – left the country after it was alleged that they had impregnated local women.56

*     There are 68 allegations of sexual abuse involving U.N. personnel in the town of Bunia alone, which is in northeast Congo,57 where U.N. peacekeepers have been stationed since May 2003.58  According to Joseph Loconte, the United Nations Children’s Fund (popularly known as UNICEF) treated some 2,000 victims of sexual violence there over a period of just several months around January 2005.59

Although troops and resources for U.N. peacekeeping operations are member-state provided, a case can be made that questionable U.N. management policies may contribute to the ongoing abuse.  For instance, despite the reported allegations of sexual abuse involving U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.N. still provides free condoms to peacekeepers stationed there because of the prevalence of AIDS.60  This curious policy is analogous to providing drug abusers with free needles, and it could encourage more abuse.

Furthermore, U.N. rules only apply to U.N. officials and, therefore, do not apply to military personnel who are under the jurisdiction of their own government’s laws.61  As Sarah Martin of Refugees International writes, “If a soldier is found guilty [of abuse], that person is sent back to his country for discipline.  It is very difficult, if not impossible, for victims and their families to determine what, if any, actions have been taken.”62

Moreover, the Washington Post reported on a confidential U.N. report that raises concerns of the effectiveness and credibility of U.N. investigations into peacekeeper sexual abuse.63  The U.N. report reveals that a Moroccan peacekeeping contingent stationed in the town of Bunia allegedly intimidated a U.N. informant investigating child prostitution and rape.  In addition to the peacekeepers from Morocco, the Post says peacekeepers from Pakistan and possibly Tunisia “were reported to have paid, or attempted to pay, witnesses to change their testimony” into cases of alleged abuse.64

Only recently in 2004 did Secretary General Kofi Annan admit that refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo had been sexually abused or exploited by U.N. peacekeepers stationed there since 1999.  “I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place.  This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it,” said Annan.65  Whether he is serious about taking action remains to be seen.


Reform Suggestions

Correcting the underlying culture of abuse will be necessary if the U.N. is to become a more accountable and effective organization for advancing American interests.  Several suggested reforms that are on target include establishing an independent oversight –  “watchdog” – body outside the U.N. bureaucracy and removing diplomatic immunity for U.N. staff accused of criminal conduct.66  These would be used as an enforcement mechanism to punish abuse.  An enforcement body not tied to the U.N.’s “culture of inaction,” as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has charged,67 would present a powerful avenue at which to address potential problem areas at the onset – and before they mature into international scandal.

However, because such reforms cut against established U.N. structures, it might be difficult to receive widespread support for them within the U.N.  Perhaps more viable solutions are found at the national level.  One proposed by The Heritage Foundation’s Brett Schaefer is for Congress to tie U.S. funding for the Human Rights Council to its effectiveness.68  Congress could bear this performance in mind when determining future appropriations and, if necessary, limit such funding.  Cutting off funding may be the only way the U.S. can compel the U.N. to take reform seriously.

There is no shortage of reforms to the U.N. that many American citizens would be justified in demanding.  Thus far U.N. reform has been mixed at best.  The United States has successfully pushed the U.N. to agree to the creation of an Ethics Office, establish stronger whistleblower protections and require an independent financial auditing and oversight system.69  However, the U.N.’s recent replacement of the Commission on Human Rights with the new Human Rights Council is little more than a Potemkin reform.  Instead of adopting explicit human rights criteria for Council membership, the U.N. drafted regulations that only urge the consideration of the records of candidate countries.  Furthermore, countries may only be excluded from membership on the Council with the approval of two-thirds of the General Assembly, thus providing no guarantee of excluding countries with deplorable human rights records.70   If future reform efforts follow the path of the Human Rights Council, then the U.N. will remain a scandal-plagued institution.



In October 1945, 51 nations signed the U.N. Charter.  As the preamble to the Charter describes, among the purposes of the U.N. are “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress.”71

It is understandable that such ambitious goals might be difficult to achieve, but there can be no excuse for the failure of the U.N. as an institution to itself emulate the values of its own Charter.   Financial scandals, sex scandals and human rights abuses increasingly are synonymous with “United Nations.”  Even Kofi Annan admits: “Unless we [the U.N.] re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself.”72  

Annan’s words may be prophetic.  For the U.N. to work towards achieving its original mission, it must move to address the corruption that presently plagues the organization.  The many scandals feed an image of the U.N. as a body that is incapable of advancing its founding goals.  This image bereft of any moral authority justifiably weakens support for the U.N. among the American public.

Ryan Balis is a policy analyst for The National Center for Public Policy Research.  


1 “Never in UN History Have Bold Decisions Been More Needed – and Possible Says Secretary-General, as UN Commemorates Charter Signing Anniversary,” U.N. Document HQ/639, United Nations, June 27, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

2 “United Nations Viewed Favorably by 37%,” Rasmussen Report, June 3, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

3 Question: “Do you think the United Nations is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face?”

Poll on UN job performance

Source: Jeffrey M. Jones, “Americans’ Ratings of United Nations Among Worst Ever: Sixty-Four Percent Say It is Doing a Poor Job,” Gallup Poll News Service, March 13, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

4 Question: “Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of” The United Nations:

Poll on opinions of the UN

Source: “A Year after Iraq War: Mistrust of America in Europe Even Higher, Muslim Anger Persists,” The Pew Global Attitudes Project, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, March 16, 2004, p. 26, available at as of June 21, 2006.

5 Paul A. Volcker, et al., “Manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Programme by the Iraqi Regime,” Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme, Oct. 27, 2005, p. 1, available at as of June 21, 2006.

6 Office of the Iraq Programme Oil-for-Food, United Nations, available at as of June 21, 2006.

7 Volcker, et al.

8 “Probe: $1.8B Diverted to Hussein Regime,” CNN, Oct. 27, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

9 Volcker, et al.

10 Volcker, et al., “Manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Programme by the Iraqi Regime,” Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme, Oct. 27, 2005,  p. 79, available at as of June 21, 2006; “Galloway: I Won Senate Showdown,”, May 18,  2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

11 “India to Probe Volcker Report,” Agence France-Presse, November 4, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006; “Volcker Report Names Natwar Singh and Congress Party as ‘Beneficiaries,'” Hindu (India), October 29, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

12 “India Minister Quits in Iraq Row,” BBC News, December 6, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006; Sanjoy Majumder, “Analysis: Congress under Pressure,” BBC News, December 7, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

13 “Indian Foreign Minister Removed,” BBC News, November 7, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

14 Colum Lynch, “U.N. Panel Says 2,400 Firms Paid Bribes to Iraq,” Washington Post, October 28, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

15 “Oil-for-Food Chief ‘Took Bribes,'” BBC News, August 8, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006; Colum Lynch, “Oil-Food Official Pleads Guilty,” Washington Post, available at as of June 21, 2006.

16 According to Paul Volcker, “In contrast to earlier denials, there is now evidence that Kojo Annan did in fact make inquiries to the U.N. purchasing department in a time frame relevant to the award of the Cotecna contract. He thus appears to be at least marginally involved in the bidding process.” See Phil Hirschkorn, Liz Neisloss and Richard Roth, “Oil Probe Faults Annan Over Son,” CNN, Sept. 8, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

17 Colum Lynch, “Oil-Food Official Pleads Guilty.”

18 Colum Lynch, “U.N. Panel Says 2,400 Firms Paid Bribes to Iraq,” Washington Post, October 28, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

19 “Probe: $1.8B Diverted to Hussein Regime,” CNN, Oct. 27, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

20 Ibid.

21 Volcker, et al.

22 “Probe: $1.8B Diverted to Hussein Regime.”

23 Father Jonathan Morris, “U.N. Conspiracy Theory: Not This Time,” Fox News, February 27, 2006, available at,3566,186167,00.html as of June 21, 2006.

24 Ibid; For text, see as of June 21, 2006.

25 Joseph Loconte, “Reforming the Human Rights Agenda of the United Nations,” Backgrounder No. 1877, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

26 Ibid.

27 Colum Lynch, U.N. Votes to Replace Rights Panel,” Washington Post, March 16, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

28 A membership list of the Commission on Human Rights is available at as of June 21, 2006.

29 Loconte, “Reforming the Human Rights Agenda of the United Nations.”

30 “Powell Calls Sudan Killings Genocide,” CNN, Sept. 9, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006.  Specifically, Secretary Powell stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, and then put it beside other information available to the State Department and widely known throughout the international community, widely reported upon by the media and by others, we concluded, I concluded, that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility – and that genocide may still be occurring… Sudan is a contracting party to the [U.N.] Genocide Convention and is obliged under the convention to prevent and to punish acts of genocide. To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has failed to do so.”

See Colin L. Powell, “U.S. Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) Holds Hearing on Sudan,” Remarks at U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sept. 9, 2004, FDCH Political Transcripts.

31 “An Overview of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations – Title 31 Part 538 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,” Department of Treasury, Washington, D.C., July 26, 2001, available at as of June 21, 2006.

32 George W. Bush, “President Addresses United Nations High-Level Plenary Meeting,” Remarks at United Nations Headquarters, Sept. 14, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

33 “U.S. Ousted from U.N. Human Rights Commission,” CNN, May 3, 2001, available at as of June 21, 2006; “U.N. Human Rights Commission Boots U.S.,” NewsMax, May 4, 2001, available at as of June 21, 2006.

34 Judy Alta, “United States Will Not Seek Human Rights Council Seat,” U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., April 6, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006; Brett D. Schaefer, “U.N. Is Still Wrong on Human Rights,” The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

35 John Bolton, “Explanation of Vote by Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the Human Rights Council Draft Resolution, in the General Assembly, March 15, 2006,” United Nations Press Release No. 51 (06), March 15, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

36 A list of Council members is available at

37 Richard Holbrooke, “Was Bosnia Worth It?” Washington Post, July 19, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

38 Darryl Li, “Anatomy of a Balkan Massacre: The Failure of International Peacekeepers in Srebrenica,” Harvard International Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, Fall 2000, available at as of June 21, 2006; “The Fall of Srebrenica,” Document A/54/549, Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35, 54th General Assembly Session, paragraphs 467-68, available at as of June 21, 2006.

39 “The Fall of Srebrenica.”

40 Mike Hanna, “‘Peace Clock’ is Ticking in Bosnia,” CNN, Dec. 16, 1995, available at as of June 21, 2006; Barbara Crossette, “U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop ’95 Bosnia Massacre,” New York Times, November 16, 1999, available at as of June 21, 2006. For a summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement, see “Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina,” Department of State, Nov. 30, 1995, available at as of June 21, 2006.

41 Quoted from David Rohde, Endgame: The Betrayal and Fall of Srebrenica, Europe’s Worst Massacre Since World War II (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997), excerpt available at as of June 21, 2006.

42 Lewis MacKenzie, “The Real Story Behind Srebrenica,” Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Lund, Sweeden, July 14, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

43 “Congo Flushes Rwandan Hutu Fighters,” CNN (AP), October 31, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006; CBC News Interview of Romeo Dallaire, October 24, 2003, available at as of June 21, 2006.

44 “Rwanda, Remembered,” Economist, March 25, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006; Andrew Purvis, “The Somalia Syndrome,” Time Europe, May 22, 2000, available at as of June 21, 2006.

45 Interview of Former U.N. Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “Ghosts of Rwanda,” PBS: Frontline, April 1, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006; Interview of Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright, “Ghosts of Rwanda,” PBS: Frontline, April 1, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006; James Jay Carafano and Nile Gardiner, “U.S. Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution,” Backgrounder #1697, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., October 15, 2003, available at as of June 21, 2006.

46 Interview of Former U.N. Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “Ghosts of Rwanda.”

47 CBC News Interview of Romeo Dallaire.

48 CBC News Interview of Romeo Dallaire, Oct. 24, 2003, available at as of June 21, 2006; Greg Barker, et al., “Ghosts of Rwanda: Viewer’s Guide,” PBS: Frontline, April 1, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006.

49 Greg Barker, et al.

50 Ibid.

51 Warren Hoge, “Report Finds U.N. Isn’t Moving to End Sex Abuse by Peacekeepers,” New York Times, October 19, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006; United Nations, “UN Refugee Official Sentenced to Three Years’ Jail for Underage Sex,” United Nations News Center, November 1, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

52 Joseph Loconte, “The U.N. Sex Scandal,” Weekly Standard, January 3, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

53 “UN Sexual Allegations Double,” BBC, May 6, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

54 Jonathan Clayton and James Bone, “Sex Scandal in Congo Threatens to Engulf U.N.’s Peacekeepers,” Times (UK), Dec. 23, 2004, available at,,3-1413501,00.html as of June 21, 2006; “UN Sexual Allegations Double.”

55 Clayton and Bone.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 “U.N. Backs Congo Emergency Force,” CNN, May 30, 2003, available at as of June 21, 2006.

59 Loconte, “The U.N. Sex Scandal.”

60 “U.N. ‘Peacekeepers’ Rape Women, Children,”, Dec. 24, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006.

61 Loconte, “The U.N. Sex Scandal”; Sarah Martin, “Must Boys Be Boys?  Ending Sexual Exploitation and Abuse In UN Peacekeeping Missions,” Refugees International, Washington, D.C., October 18, 2005, p. 7, available at as of June 21, 2006.

62 Martin.

63 Nile Gardiner, “The U.N. Peacekeeping Scandal in the Congo: How Congress Should Respond,” Lecture #868, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

64 Colum Lynch, “U.N.  Sexual Abuse Alleged in Congo: Peacekeepers Accused in Draft Report,” Washington Post, December 16, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006.

65 “Annan Admits U.N. D.R. Congo Abuses,” BBC, November 19, 2004, available at as of June 21, 2006.

66 Gardiner.

67 Randy Hall, “Bolton: US Reforms Challenging UN’s ‘Culture of Inaction,'”, February 11, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

68 Brett D. Schaefer, “Human-Rights Redux,” National Review Online, May 11, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

69 Judy Aita, “Ambassador Bolton Says 2006-2007 Budget Must Reflect Reform Effort,” U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., December 6, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

70 Brett D. Schaefer, “U.N. Resolution on Human Rights Council Does Not Deserve U.S. Support,” WebMemo #1002, The Heritage Foundation, March 1, 2006, available at as of June 21, 2006.

71 Text available at

72 See “Without Reform of Human Rights Body, U.N. Credibility at Stake, Annan Says,” United Nations, April 7, 2005, available at as of June 21, 2006.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.