Reformed by responsibility

Zimnbabwe is an odd choice to head the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. No one can doubt the sustainability of Robert Mugabe8217;s regime: it has, regrettably, defied countless predictions of collapse. As for development, the country is certainly a striking case study 8212; but of decline, not growth. Few countries offer more vivid advertisement for the connection between sound government and long-term prosperity. The commission8217;s aim is a better life for the many. Zimbabwe is run to provide a high life for the few, involving looted farms and high-spending shopping trips to Dubai and Johannesburg, with increasing misery for everyone else.

But look on the bright side. Few things are more dull than a worthy cause run by a do-gooding country. It is a fair bet that if, say, Sweden or Canada were chairing the commission, nobody outside the aid industry would hear a squeak about its doings over the next year. Zimbabwe8217;s stewardship, by contrast, will attract much scrutiny. Journalists, donors and other critics will be searching for examples of misspent money or 8212; even better 8212; further examples of hypocrisy.

The power of such a spotlight has already been demonstrated: Libya8217;s chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission in 2003 helped force that body8217;s transformation into something that 8212; perhaps 8212; requires slightly higher standards. Since then Libya has started to shrug off bits of its roguish reputation, voluntarily ending its nuclear programme8230;

Similarly, putting some notorious narco-state in charge would electrify the UN8217;s sleepily-run drug programme. Saudi Arabia could take over the UN8217;s commission on the status of women. The inter-governmental panel on climate change could be overseen by smoke-belching China. Belarus, which ruthlessly sells weapons of all kinds to anyone with cash, could be asked to take over the UN disarmament department.

From a leader in the May 19 issue of 8216;The Economist8217;