Normblog had a link last week to an Op-Ed piece in the The Times with the title "With Sudan a Member, the U.N. is Pointless" (hence my apologies for the title of this post). The author, Adam Lebor (also the author of a book to be published on November 1st called "Complicity With Evil": The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide that vituperates, correctly in this blogger's opinion, against Koffi Anan and the U.N.) argues, as Norm puts it,
"the case for expelling Sudan, and in principle other countries in extreme violation of the UN Charter, from the UN."
Pencil in Zimbabwe among the "other countries". LeBor reminds us that the U.N charter provides for expulsion of countries that are in gross violation of its provisions:
"In fact the issue is very simple. UN member states that fail to live up to the requirements of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights should be sanctioned, suspended and, in extreme cases, expelled. Article 6 of the charter already provides for expulsion: “A member . . . which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present charter may be expelled by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
Why would an outlaw country care, you might ask? In fact they care very much:
"UN membership is important, especially to prickly post-colonial states uncertain of their place in the world. It confers legitimacy and prestige. It provides them with psychological and political succour and the plentiful company of kindred spirits. Once inside the UN complex in New York tyrants morph into worthy interlocutors, their opinions sought by superpowers, their egos massaged, their meetings with world leaders broadcast on their state-controlled television."
Read the whole article and add Zimbabwe to the list of candidates for expulsion.