The United Nations is in a crisis of relevance. In a desperate effort to prevent the collapse of the international institution, Kofi Annan appointed a 16-member “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change” last November. The report is expected in December. U.N. observers are eagerly awaiting the panel’s recommendations about two areas of critical concern to the United States.
The panel is expected to recommend the criteria to legitimize pre-emptive unilateral action, and to recommend major changes in the structure of the U.N. Security Council.
Kofi Annan has already declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be “illegal.” Panel member Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia, told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
A central reason for our appointment was concern that the U.N., and indeed the whole multilateral security system, was really at a crossroads with the resurgence of unilateralism from you know whom, and increasing willingness to bypass the Security Council.
When George Bush slammed shut the window of diplomacy, after the U.N. Security Council refused to make good on its threats against Iraq, issued through 17 resolutions over 12 years, the crisis of relevance at the United Nations became obvious to the world. Annan’s High Level Panel is expected to draft the rules of engagement which will prevent, or at least provide the basis for international condemnation of unilateral action in the future.
The reason for the U.N. Security Council’s inaction is now coming into focus. The unfolding “Oil for Food” scandal implicates both U.N. officials, and officials in the governments of those nations who refused to act. Benon Sevan, once the executive director of the program, was among hundreds of people who received oil vouchers and bribes from Hussein. As late as May 2002, France assured Hussein that it would use its veto in the Security Council to prevent an invasion of Iraq.
This revelation exposes two fundamental, fatal, flaws that permeate the United Nations:
- A nation’s self-interest will always trump the security interests of other nations; and,
- Corruption will always trump integrity in governments that are empowered by appointment, rather than by the consent of the governed.
Both the United Nations, and the nations that refused to enforce 17 U.N. resolutions, chose to profit from Saddam Hussein’s corruption, rather than to put an end to his support of terrorism and the oppression of his people.
Restructuring the U.N. Security Council will not change these fundamental flaws, it will only expand the potential for abuse, further empower the U.N. bureaucracy, and dilute the United States’ power.
The United Nations’ ultimate goal is to expand the U.N. Security Council, and to eliminate P-5 – the permanent member status of the five nations that hold veto power over Security Council actions.
The recommendations of Annan’s High Level Panel are not expected to reach for the elimination of veto power at this time. It is expected to recommend the expansion of Security Council membership, and perhaps, to expand the number of permanent members.
Originally, the Security Council consisted of 11 members, five of which were permanent, each with veto power. The remaining six members served two-year terms, rotated among the member nations. The Council was expanded to 15 members in 1965, with no change in the status of the permanent members.
Four nations – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – have formed a group to lobby for permanent member status. There is additional support to add an African nation to the group of new permanent members.
Annan’s High Level Panel has been deliberating in relative secrecy for nearly a year. Their report may also be kept secret – at Kofi Annan’s discretion. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft is the only American on the panel.
Whatever the panel recommends will have to be approved by the United States. This so-called reform may be the deciding factor in the future of the United Nations. Most of the world resents the ability, and willingness of the United States to act unilaterally when it chooses. Without the reform measures expected from the panel, other member nations will realize that the United Nations cannot contain and control the United States.
If the reform measures are adopted, the United States will signal its willingness to be contained and controlled by the United Nations.
Politically, it will be extremely difficult for the United States to reject the reform measures. But this may be the time, and the way for the United States to declare to the world that it will not be a party to a global bureaucracy, fraught with corruption, bent on controlling the destiny of all nations.
To do so, the United States must offer a better alternative. What may be a better alternative than expanding the Security Council, is the elimination of it. The Security Council has been increasingly ineffective in reaching decisions, and even less effective in enforcing the decisions it has reached.
Elimination of the Security Council would give the General Assembly reason to exist, where nations can continue to meet to discuss differences, and to develop voluntary agreements to work together on projects of mutual benefit.
The United Nation’s quest to administer its brand of global governance must be stopped. Elimination of the Security Council would be a very good first step.
The opportunity to further empower, or to begin dismantling the United Nations will be forced upon the United States early next year when Annan’s panel’s recommendations are revealed. Americans should make sure their elected officials know how they feel about this important decision.
WATCH WND LIVE: The regime is determined to STOP HIM AT ANY COST
WND Staff