Posted on 09/21/2004 3:00:51 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The new session of the United Nations General Assembly is likely to take up the touchy subject of Security Council "reform."
For years, many nations have advocated modernizing the United Nations to reflect a more current view of the geopolitical situation. They argue that U.N. institutions are frozen in time and built on the balance of power as it existed at the end of World War II, when the world body was formed.
The primary focus of the reformers' concern is the U.N. Security Council, the most powerful and significant of all U.N. institutions.
Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council is charged with protecting security and maintaining peace around the world. It is the only U.N. body whose pronouncements are legally binding on all members, and the only U.N. institution with the power to request troops and other security resources from member nations for dispatch around the world.
Under the Charter, there are five permanent members of the Security Council: the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China, which each have the power to veto any proposal. In addition, there are ten non-permanent members, which are elected by the General Assembly and serve two-year terms.
Critics of the current Security Council make-up argue that major military and financial contributors are denied permanent seats and they lament the lack of a permanent voice for Africa and South America.
These arguments spurred U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to appoint a special "High Level Panel" of former diplomats and national leaders to consider structural changes to the world body. This panel is expected to report its recommendations in December.
In the meantime, the international jockeying already has begun. Japan, Germany, Brazil and India are waging active campaigns to secure permanent seats on the Security Council. Foreign ministers are jetting from capital to capital, trying to secure support for their respective bids. Egypt, Nigeria and others also have expressed interest.
The U.S. government has said that because Japan and Germany are the second and third largest financial contributors to the United Nations, respectively, the United States supports making those two nations permanent members. More generally, the United States says it will await the final report from the High Level Panel and see what, if any, specific proposals are developed before announcing its final position.
Despite our government's generosity toward Germany and Japan, the United States should be on guard. Many advocates of reform have made it clear that they consider Security Council reform the best way to further dilute American influence on the Council specifically and at the United Nations in general.
Over the past few years, we've seen that the United Nations is no particular friend of the United States. However, in many cases, we've been able to use our influence \'af and our veto \'af in the Security Council to advance America's interests and to protect ourselves from those that would harm us.
Once the Pandora's Box of United Nations reform is opened, closing it again in order to protect U.S. interests is certain to be difficult.
Changes to the U.N. Charter must be initiated in the General Assembly, where representatives of totalitarian regimes and underdeveloped nations dominate. Their radical agendas have made the General Assembly the poster child for U.N. incompetence and irrelevance.
Given its historical unpredictability and penchant for placing rhetoric and zealotry over substance, if the General Assembly begins considering proposals to amend the U.N. Charter, anything could happen.
Because the first tool in diplomacy is compromise, it is critical to view the American starting position as merely a beginning point. If the United States enters the reform debate ready to agree to certain Charter amendments, there is a real danger that the final diplomatic "compromise" will not be what we bargained for.
We might find the Security Council expanded to the point of absurdity, with permanent votes (and vetoes) for all of the announced candidates. Nothing good can come from that.
A cynic might say that such reform would bring the United Nations closer to self-destruction and welcome such a development. But it's clear that we're stuck with the United Nations for now. Therefore, it's vital that the United States protect its interests and maintain a firm hand on the U.N.'s rudder. Otherwise, the world body might spin further out of control.
For that reason, the U.S. should drop its support for adding new permanent members to the Security Council and oppose efforts to consider U.N. reform.
Once we start down the slippery slope of Security Council expansion and dilution of American power on the Council, there's no telling where it will stop.
There is no reform of something corrupt which is unnecessary in the first place...the UN Oil for Food islamocommunists. They must leave America for good. And take their prostitute-loving DIP-lo-mats with them. No more immunity for the pigs.
Better suggestion, lets do away with the UN all together. It is an ineffectual debating orginization that really has accomplished nothing major in the past several years.
Ditto
That would work for me. More veto power to more countries means more UN gridlock. Where's the problem there?
Three step reform:
1. Move the HQ to Paris where it belongs.
2. Stop paying them a dime of US funds.
3. Resign the US membership.
The equally useless League of Nations was
abandoned with far less cause.
Toss em out on their ear and give tenants of the destroyed WTC first crack at the office space!
The UN is nothing but an umbrella for corruption and the weakest link in our national security.
Once the Pandora's Box of United Nations reform is opened, closing it again in order to protect U.S. interests is certain to be difficult.
The building is junk, remember the $2 billion they asked for to fix it up...knock it down and put something usefull in it's place.
MD
Of course we should reform the UN. New York needs more parking!
its much better to STAY IN and use our VETO on nearly
everything.
It's much safer to simply get out.
oppose? I have a better idea, withdraw completely. We can take our $billions and use it for our soldiers or something useful.
The box was opened when their charter was signed.
Time to put the corruption genie back in the bottle. The most difficult part of it will be prying their grubby fingers from their cash allocations, diplimatic immunity perks, and elitist friendships.
Guys like Ted Turner, who donated the interest off a conveluted $10 billion donation, for ten years, wouldn't have that tax haven. He'd actually have to pay the US Government taxes on that interest!! OMG!!
> ... its much better to STAY IN and use our VETO on nearly
everything.
I disagree.
The existence of this dictator's club gives people the
false hope that there really is a "super parent" that
takes care of world problems. There isn't, and we need
to stop pretending.
Let the US-less (pronounced useless) UN pontificate
and pass toothless resolutions. If they piss US off,
well, what's that old slang "you and what army?"
i say we dump the communist UN and send them packing to the Hague.
Why are we still even having to talk about the UN, founded by World Communists (Alger Hiss) and used to take America down, it's sole purpose?
The U.S. should get the hell out of the U.N.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.