UN impotence against tyranny cannot continue 
July 13, 2008
The Telegraph
Original Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/13/dl1301.xml

Just how bad does the tyranny in Zimbabwe have to get before the world takes action? 
Robert Mugabe has already installed himself as President-for-life, having stolen two elections and had more than 5,000 of those who supported the opposition party either killed or imprisoned. He also ensured that a further 200,000 were evicted from their homes. 
Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition, sensibly decided there was no point in continuing to co-operate with Mugabe's grotesque parody of democracy. Mugabe then claimed victory in a sham of his own creation. 
The condition of Zimbabwe's people grows daily more desperate - solely because of Mugabe's abysmal mismanagement of the country.
The leaders of the democracies in Europe and America tried to persuade the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, as well as a travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his top henchmen. Their attempt failed. 
Russian and China, both permanent members of the security council and able to veto any proposal, torpedoed the idea of punishing Mugabe's regime.
David Miliband, Britain's Foreign Secretary, called their decision incomprehensible. In fact, it is only too understandable, for it derives from the ruthless pursuit of self-interest that has characterised the foreign policies of these states. 
China's investment in Africa has increased hugely recently, but the real reason for both these vetoes isn't economic: it is fear of the precedent that would be set if the UN explicitly authorises action against a country because it is governed by a tyrannical autocrat. 
Zimbabwe, as Russia's ambassador to the UN correctly pointed out, is no threat to international stability.
The security council's application for enforcement measures, he concluded, has no foundation under chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This draft is nothing but the council's attempt to interfere with the internal affairs of states. 
China agrees with that judgement, confirming that there is a tacit pact between the world's dictatorial regimes to ensure that they can continue to deny their people basic democratic rights: they know they themselves will become vulnerable if it is established as a principle of the UN that there is a limit beyond which governments are not entitled to oppress their own people.
China and Russia have largely co-operated in the global war on terror, essentially because they feel at least as threatened by fundamentalist terrorism as America and Europe do. But they are not interested in spreading democracy and respect for human rights around the globe. 
Russia uses the leverage that its control of gas and oil gives it to prevent its neighbouring states from embracing full democracy, just as China uses its power to ensure that the citizens of countries such as Burma and Tibet are denied elementary democratic rights.
Reducing all matters of foreign policy to a calculation of naked self-interest certainly makes everything simpler, and there are Western politicians who insist that our democracies should give up on idealism and concentrate on the realistic pursuit of self-interest.
That, however, would leave the world defenceless in the face of the grim expansion of Russia and China's vision of the future, a vision that does not include the two most precious ingredients of peace and prosperity: democracy and the respect for human rights.
John McCain, the Republican candidate in America's presidential election, has suggested an alternative to a UN deadlocked by the vetoes of China and Russia. 
He proposes a league of democracies, in which nations committed to what might be termed the Western system would come together and use their joint power to try to advance more enlightened forms of governance. It wouldn't be an alternative to the UN. But it would tackle some of the problems which vetoes from the tyrannies on the security council ensure that the UN cannot.
There are many difficulties with turning McCain's vision into reality. Yet the failure of the UN, like the impotence of the G8, which was also on display last week, requires serious debate on how to remedy the ineffectiveness of global institutions. 
The alternative is that the West sits on the sidelines as tyranny crushes democracy - and Zimbabwe becomes the latest failure to confront autocracy.
Telegraph view is written by our team of leader writers and commentators. This team includes David Hughes, Philip Johnston, Simon Heffer, Janet Daley, Con Coughlin, Robert Colvile, Iain Martin and Alex Singleton.