Reforming the Useless Nations
Fox News has a good article on some reforms to the United Nations that Secretary General Kofi Annan is expected to propose on Monday. There are several things worth noting.
The United Nations has pretty much failed in almost every attempt to make legitimate global security decisions, and its "international development" schemes have been pretty much worthless. These are issues that aren't going to be solved by restructuring the United Nations. When you have the puppets of dictators and communists sitting on both the General Assembly and the Security Council, there is no chance for legitimate "international development" or global security decisions.
First and foremost, it's worth noting that the last item, "an agreement on rules for the use of force and preemptive action", will never happen. Iraq was in blatant violation of seventeen Security Council resolutions for more than twelve years, and the Security Council couldn't even agree to hold them accountable for it. Why should I expect that the General Assembly would be able to agree on this? The United Nations has unable to give an official definition of terrorism; why should I expect that they can have an effective terrorism convention? This is ridiculous.
Which is to say that no other country can protect itself without the help of the United States. We develop purely defensive systems, we're condemned. We develop offensive systems, we're criticized. We do the jobs of the United Nations when they prove that they can't do it themselves, and we're chastized. And now Secretary General Annan expects us to believe that the United States needs the United Nations? Riiiiiight.
The nations that get rotated into seats on the current Human Rights Commission have no problem denying suffrage to their citizens, oppressing women and minorities, jailing dissidents, et cetera; then they condemn the United States and Israel for minor, completely subjective "offenses" while giving a free pass to major human rights violators like China, Iran, North Korea, et cetera. Then liberals get all bent out of shape when conservatives call the Commission, and the other broken parts of the U.N., illegitimate and corrupt. Short of putting down specific and realistic requirements for this "Council", such changes will do nothing to improve that body's legitimacy.
As far as I'm concerned, there's really no need to expand the Security Council, though there's a very real need to restructure it. First and foremost, France needs to lose its veto. It didn't deserve it when it received it, and it sure as hell doesn't now, in spite of President Chirac's efforts to restore French prestige and power in the international community. If I were redesigning the Security Council, well... I'd have to think more about it. Suffice to say, the structure would be quite different. Perhaps I'll post on that later.
The point is that making a few structural changes to the United Nations won't solve the problems. The corruption stems from the fact that the leadership of the U.N. is nothing more than a gentleman's club where illegal and unethical practices are ignored by people who don't want to be responsible for taking their friends and colleagues to task. The General Assembly can't get anything done because it's populated by dictators, communists, and state sponsors of terrorism. The Security Council can't get anything done because the French are more interested in increasing their prestige and serving as a foil to zee Amerrrrican swine than they are in enforcing international justice and security (oh, and the whole Oil-for-Food corruption thing doesn't help either).
The United Nations is broken because its mandate relies on humanity's greatest virtues, while its operations are control by the world's more horrible tyrannies. For Secretary General Kofi Annan to believe that these diametric opposites can be reconciled by a few procedural modifications is the height of hubris and ignorance.
The blueprint for reform, according to a draft copy obtained by The Times, also proposes ways to keep the U.N. the primary setting for global security decisions and the key player in international development issues.
The United Nations has pretty much failed in almost every attempt to make legitimate global security decisions, and its "international development" schemes have been pretty much worthless. These are issues that aren't going to be solved by restructuring the United Nations. When you have the puppets of dictators and communists sitting on both the General Assembly and the Security Council, there is no chance for legitimate "international development" or global security decisions.
In an attempt to put the U.N. at the center of security policy, the report calls for a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention by September 2006, new measures to stem nuclear proliferation and an agreement on rules for the use of force and preemptive action, the Times said.
First and foremost, it's worth noting that the last item, "an agreement on rules for the use of force and preemptive action", will never happen. Iraq was in blatant violation of seventeen Security Council resolutions for more than twelve years, and the Security Council couldn't even agree to hold them accountable for it. Why should I expect that the General Assembly would be able to agree on this? The United Nations has unable to give an official definition of terrorism; why should I expect that they can have an effective terrorism convention? This is ridiculous.
The proposal is also in part an appeal to the United States not to forsake the U.N. but rather to help guide the reform. "In today's world, no state, however powerful, can protect itself on its own," it quoted Annan as saying.
Which is to say that no other country can protect itself without the help of the United States. We develop purely defensive systems, we're condemned. We develop offensive systems, we're criticized. We do the jobs of the United Nations when they prove that they can't do it themselves, and we're chastized. And now Secretary General Annan expects us to believe that the United States needs the United Nations? Riiiiiight.
[R]ather than establish criteria to exclude [human rights] violator nations from the council, he gently suggests that they have no place on [the new Human Rights Council]. "Those elected to the council should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards," the Times quoted the report as saying.
The current process of selecting members from regional groups has given seats on the 53-member commission to countries with questionable human rights records, such as Sudan, Libya and Cuba, making it a lightning rod for criticism, even from supporters of the U.N.
The nations that get rotated into seats on the current Human Rights Commission have no problem denying suffrage to their citizens, oppressing women and minorities, jailing dissidents, et cetera; then they condemn the United States and Israel for minor, completely subjective "offenses" while giving a free pass to major human rights violators like China, Iran, North Korea, et cetera. Then liberals get all bent out of shape when conservatives call the Commission, and the other broken parts of the U.N., illegitimate and corrupt. Short of putting down specific and realistic requirements for this "Council", such changes will do nothing to improve that body's legitimacy.
On another attention-getting topic, Annan says expansion of the Security Council must occur but he takes no stand on two competing proposals, according to the Times.
Annan wants to enlarge the 15-member council to better reflect current realities and involve more countries who contribute financially, militarily and diplomatically to the United Nations. Both proposals would increase the membership from 15 to 24 but differ on the number of permanent and elected members.
As far as I'm concerned, there's really no need to expand the Security Council, though there's a very real need to restructure it. First and foremost, France needs to lose its veto. It didn't deserve it when it received it, and it sure as hell doesn't now, in spite of President Chirac's efforts to restore French prestige and power in the international community. If I were redesigning the Security Council, well... I'd have to think more about it. Suffice to say, the structure would be quite different. Perhaps I'll post on that later.
The point is that making a few structural changes to the United Nations won't solve the problems. The corruption stems from the fact that the leadership of the U.N. is nothing more than a gentleman's club where illegal and unethical practices are ignored by people who don't want to be responsible for taking their friends and colleagues to task. The General Assembly can't get anything done because it's populated by dictators, communists, and state sponsors of terrorism. The Security Council can't get anything done because the French are more interested in increasing their prestige and serving as a foil to zee Amerrrrican swine than they are in enforcing international justice and security (oh, and the whole Oil-for-Food corruption thing doesn't help either).
The United Nations is broken because its mandate relies on humanity's greatest virtues, while its operations are control by the world's more horrible tyrannies. For Secretary General Kofi Annan to believe that these diametric opposites can be reconciled by a few procedural modifications is the height of hubris and ignorance.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home