Congressional reaction to all of the recent U.N. failures is coming together in HR2745 – the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The bill, named to honor the retiring chairman of the House International Relations Committee, lists 39 specific reform measures, at least 32 of which must be implemented, or U.N. funding will be reduced by 50 percent.

Finally, Congress is doing something about the United Nations. In this case, however, "something" may be the wrong thing to do.

None of the 39 listed reform measures, nor any of the so-called reform measures offered by Kofi Annan, address the fundamental flaw in the U.N. structure. The United Nations structure ignores the principle that governments "... derive their just power from the consent of the governed."

No amount of tinkering around the edges will overcome this basic, fatal, structural flaw.

The United Nations should not be a governing institution. It should be a forum where sovereign nations gather to discuss their differences and develop voluntary, cooperative initiatives. Problems arise when the United Nations is given enforcement power. Because the institution is not empowered by the consent of the governed, it is not accountable to the governed, and therefore, is free to inevitably devolve into corruption and abuse.

The reform measures proposed by the Hyde bill do nothing to limit the function of the United Nations Instead, they work to expand the governing power of the United Nations by attempting to squeeze out some of the inefficiency. The proposed reforms actually strengthen the United Nations' power to govern.

Article 42 of the U.N. Charter authorizes the Security Council to "... take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." Originally, this "action" had to be executed by sovereign nations, working in voluntary cooperation.

Hyde's bill calls for the creation of a new U.N. "Peacebuilding Commission" as a subsidiary body to the U.N. Security Council – a requirement that parallels a recommendation from Kofi Annan's reform committee. This so-called reform expands and institutionalizes the peacekeeping bureaucracy, and specifically requires participation by financial and development agencies. This "reform" clearly strengthens the governing power of the United Nations.

The United States should not support any action that strengthens the power of a global government, but that's exactly what the Hyde bill does. The United States should insist that the United Nations never gain the power to govern, that it remain a forum for debate, or be abolished.

U.N. supporters deny that the United Nations is, or seeks to be, a global government. They claim that the system of international treaties, conventions and norms results in "global governance," which – they say – is not the same as global government.

The difference between global governance and global government is much the same as the difference between date-rape, and rape. One begins with seduction, but both end in violence.

As the United Nations' power to govern increases, national sovereignty decreases. The power to govern increased rather dramatically with the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994. Most of the WTO's decisions regarding the United States have been against U.S. policy, and have forced the United States to comply with WTO policy. The Convention on the Law of the Sea would require the United States to exercise its sovereignty over territorial seas "subject to this Convention." The United Nations' power to govern increases with every new treaty, and every so-called reform.

Even the most ardent U.N. supporters have to admit that most of the members of the United Nations have no interest in advancing the policy goals of the United States. In fact, most nations oppose U.S. policy and interests at the United Nations, even though they welcome U.S. assistance outside the United Nations. The oil-for-food scandal demonstrates how even France, Germany, and Russia – all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – valued Saddam's bribe money more than the security interests of the United States.

A far better way to deal with the United Nations would be to take another look at HR1146, a bill that would extract the United States from the United Nations altogether, and remove the United Nations from U.S. soil.

If the world is to be governed by a single, global government, unaccountable to the people who are governed, oppressive tyranny will be the inevitable result. If the United States withdraws from the United Nations, and uses its resources and influence to promote the first principle – that government "... derives its just power from the consent of the governed" – the world may be spared decades of U.N.-type corruption, abuse and, eventually, oppression.

Congress should rethink Henry Hyde's U.N. reform bill, and muster up the courage to get out of the failed, and fatally-flawed institution that wants to rule the world.