The true coerced and bribed coalition

Someone I know sides with Kerry in believing that the U.N. is the answer, and that the U.S. should never act internationally without U.N. approval. He was unimpressed by my pointing out that the U.N. has become an utterly corrupt, imbalanced institution, overwhelmed by anti-Semitic (and, by implication, anti-American) governments that are unlikely standard bearers for balanced reasoning. A stunning example of the utter uselessness of the U.N. is the composition of the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights. This year's Commission includes such standard bearers as the Sudan and Sierra Leone. Next year, we'll see Zimbabwe and the Congo stepping up to bat. My friend agreed with me that the great mass of U.N. member nations was a problem, and unlikely to be sympathetic to American concerns, but argued that the Security Council, which has as its five permanent members the United States, France, China, Russia and the United Kingdom, provides a counterweight that can offset this systemic problem. Imagine my lack of surprise when I learned through Power Line that a Financial Times article shows that that Iraq systematically bribed France, China and Russia to ensure that they would refuse any United States initiative to challenge Saddam Hussein. It seems that Kerry was right all along when he spoke of a coalition of the "coerced and bribed." He just misidentified the coalition. It's not the brave nations in Iraq now, it's France, China and Russia, comfortably ensconced on the Security Council, with their troops out of harm's way. Disgusting. UPDATE: Regarding the U.N., see Anne Bayefsky's great article about that institution.