If the UN started today, how would it work?

That's a question Claudia Rosett asks today in her excellent, ongoing coverage of the scandal-plagued United Nations. Here are a few more questions she asks along those lines:

• Would we choose to start with an organizational chart anything like that of the U.N. today — a labyrinth so vast and secret that according to Mr. Volcker's findings even the U.N.'s own management cannot decipher it?
• Would we create a Security Council in which the despotic People's Republic of China holds a permanent seat and a fascist state such as Syria rotates through the presidency, but democratic Israel is systematically excluded from serving at all?
• Would we create a General Assembly in which Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma and Turkmenistan all wield a vote, but the elected leader of democratic Taiwan is not even allowed to set foot on the premises?
• Would we create a U.N. in which the financial accounts are secret, the auditing is inadequate, and the standards are double or worse — lax for the highest officials and severe for lower-tier staff who lack patrons in the right places?

All good questions. No good answers. And very little optimism that the UN will reform itself into a functioning contributor to world affairs.

One other thing I wonder: why would liberals sing the praises of the UN, intentionally ignoring the obvious fact that much of its scandal is linked to nepotism and cronyism, but criticize President Bush (rightly) for filling governmental positions on the basis of that same cronyism?

Just wondering.