Posted on 11/24/2004 12:42:40 PM PST by FairOpinion
For a good many years, it has been a fair question whether or not the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. For the first 15 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1960, it served its purpose as a handy forum for the world's variegated nations, and even occasionally served a useful purpose -- as in 1950, when it lent its name to the American-led war to defend South Korea from the North Korean invasion. (Though even that was possible only because the Soviet Union, which could have vetoed the move, had temporarily walked out of the Security Council in a huff over something or other.)
But then, about 1960, a flood of new ex-colonial nations entered the world body, and quickly organized themselves as the Third World, ostensibly neutral in the epochal struggle between the Communist powers and the Free World. By virtue of sheer numbers this new entity seized control of the General Assembly -- and with it control of the United Nations' central bureaucracy -- and began selling itself to the higher of the two global bidders: Washington and Moscow. Slowly, however, under the leadership of India, the Third World began siding regularly with Moscow, and the United Nations followed suit.
This thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs lasted until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That forced the Untied Nations, which, like any bureaucracy, is interested first and foremost in self-preservation, to seek a new sponsor. In the past decade, as France and Germany have increasingly seen themselves as the leaders of Europe in an effort to create a counterbalance to the American superpower; the United Nations has progressively yielded to their guidance. Today, it is little more than a marginally useful tool in their schemes to rein in the United States.
That is one reason why, in 2002 and 2003, the United Nations did its unsuccessful best to block the American invasion of Iraq, despite Saddam Hussein's defiance of 12 successive U.N. demands that it abandon its development of chemical, biological and (if possible) nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And that is also why U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is today contending that any American military effort is "illegal" if Washington doesn't first receive the United Nations' permission.
All this would be more than enough reason for the United States to withdraw formally from all participation in the United Nations' brazen efforts to run the world. But recently it has become clear that the Secretariat of the United Nations, or at least many highly placed officials in it, are quite simply corrupt. The United Nations' appalling mismanagement of the high-minded "Oil for Food" program, under which Hussein was allowed to sell Iraqi oil ostensibly in return for desperately needed food and medical aid for his people, may well turn out to be the biggest instance of thievery in the entire world history of theft.
As the program actually worked, the United Nations allowed Hussein to sell oil to chosen beneficiaries at artificially low prices -- oil which they could then resell at the market price, pocketing the difference. The beneficiaries apparently included U.N. officials and (not surprisingly) well-placed French, German and Russian players. Small wonder that their governments, and the United Nations itself, bitterly opposed George W. Bush's intention to topple Hussein!
The scope of the corruption is now under investigation by the panel appointed Annan and led by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is personally above suspicion. But Volcker seems to be having difficulty getting the cooperation he needed from Annan's office, and he may be forced to report that he is not being allowed to do the job that needs to be done.
A better avenue of investigation, therefore, may be the Congressional committee headed by Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman. This committee, too, has reported that it is running into foot-dragging at the United Nations. But it will press on, and there is reason to hope that it will come up with some answers, however shocking they may be.
All of which makes even more urgent a serious reevaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"
===== Mr. Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
NOPE
What was the question again?
Put me down for; Don't even try to "save" the U.N.
Fact is, we will all have to work very hard at destroying the U.N.
Get rid of it!
NYS Senate Suspends UN Expansion Proposal
(Albany, NY) AP 11/19/04 - A bill allowing the United Nations to expand its Manhattan building is withdrawn from the state Senate agenda under sharp criticism.
A state bill is required for the United Nations to renovate its building and erect a 35-story structure next door. The bill had gained the favor of legislative leaders and Governor Pataki.
In opposing the bill, Senator Martin Golden noted the United Nations's oil-for-food program, which is being investigated by Congress for alleged corruption. The Brooklyn Republican said if the United Nations was Enron, the secretary general would be in handcuffs.
Senate Majority spokesman Mark Hansen said the bill is expected to be back on the Senate floor in December. The Assembly is expected to pass the measure next month.
http://www.wokr13.tv/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=3BEFD7E3-1C05-4F2D-81D3-030D10DF00E1
Dear Mr.Rusher,
The time came and went for Uncle Sam to have said enough.
PS. Screw The UN
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.