In a deeply misleading paragraph, the Conservative Voice claims, “The United Nations’ second in command Malloch Brown [sic] said Wednesday that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. As Brown reports directly to UN Sec. Gen. Kofi Annan, this statement is believed to reflect the position of the entire UN body.”

The brief article includes no direct quotes from the Deputy Secretary General. In fact, it does not even get his name right. (His first name is “Mark”, not “Malloch,” which is part of his surname.) Presumably, their article is based on Malloch Brown’s recent and widely discussed interview with the Financial Times. A quick review of the transcript reveals that it would be quite a stretch to interpret Malloch Brown’s comments as anyway supportive of Hezbollah.What he does tell journalist Mark Turner about the nexus between Hezbollah and terrorism is precisely this: “It’s not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics, it is an organization however whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda … Over time there’s got to be a similar future as there have been for other terrorist fighters; a settlement which addresses the political issues of their cause as well as the military ones. Which secures disarmament and reintegration into a non violent political process.”

This is a far cry from insinuating that the United Nations refuses to call Hezbollah “terrorists.”

Writing in Democracy Arsenal, David Shorr asks how long it will take commentators to start talking about the crisis in Lebanon and Israel as a “failure” of the United Nations.
“I have written elsewhere that the chief political function of the UN is often to serve as a scapegoat … Ironically, the UN was a significant contributor to Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution last year. After the Hariri assassination, the Security Council displayed remarkable unity in putting pressure on Syria. And that’s the point, international organizations can be quite effective when governments come together and agree on a course of action.”

This point should be repeated ad nauseam each time a conservative editorial condemns the United Nations’ ‘impotence’ in the current crisis. As I write, the French are circulating a draft resolution that calls for an immediate cease fire. The impediments to action are America’s reservations about the timing and order of a cease fire resolution, for better or worse. Until those are resolved, the Council will have its hands tied. And this is no fault of the United Nations.