- The Washington Times - Saturday, December 11, 2004

In wine, the experts say, vintage is everything. If that’s the case, 2004 has been a very bad year for the United Nations. But the U.N.’s vinegar may yet prove to be a very good thing for the rest of us — particularly if it is decided to break open the casks, pour out the putrid contents and start over.

For adherents of “internationalism” and “collective security” at the U.N., 2004 has been a tough year. The “Oil-for-Food” scandal, a story that first broke on Fox News, now has “legs” of its own — and investigators are honing in on those closest to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

To make matters worse for the egocentric Mr. Annan, George W. Bush, who challenged the U.N. to live up to its own stated resolutions and responsibilities — and was castigated for doing so — got himself re-elected. And now, just as Mr. Annan plans to put the arm on American citizens for a multibillion-dollar makeover for his Turtle Bay palace, along comes his hand-picked “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes” with a report indicting U.N. ineffectiveness.

It all points to a remarkable opportunity for the world’s democracies to clean up the festering mess the United Nations has become — and create something more suited to the 21st century’s new world disorder.

Though the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scam has yet to rise to the level of importance in the U.S. media as the Scott Peterson trial, the international press corps — usually sympathetic to the United Nations — has started snooping around in France, Germany, Russia, China and the half-dozen other countries whose officials may be implicated. In the U.S. Congress, there are calls for Mr. Annan’s resignation and measures to hold corrupt U.N. officials — now immune from prosecution — accountable for crimes they commit “while on duty.” In Baghdad, FBI investigators, working with Iraqi and U.S. Justice Department prosecutors on the case against Saddam Hussein and other high officials of his regime, are weighing how they can learn more about how U.N.-administered funds were siphoned off to buy weapons, enrich Saddam and line the pockets of mendacious foreign officials and U.N. bureaucrats.

And at U.N. headquarters, Paul Volcker, perhaps prodded by tenacious investigative Fox News correspondents Eric Shawn and Jonathan Hunt, promises a “full and fair” report exposing who got what, even if it goes “to the top” of the U.N. pyramid.

None of this is good news for the long-tenured Mr. Annan who is scheduled to remain in office until 2006. But Kofi is fighting back, collecting billions of dollars to refurbish the 58-year-old U.N. headquarters building in New York — and build a new 35-story complex next door for an even bigger world-governing bureaucracy. He dismisses his troubles as the consequence of a “conservative, anti-U.N. rabble” — just trying to make trouble for an international institution they never liked anyway.

But no one should ignore the scathing internal critique proffered by the U.N.’s own “high level” panel on reform. Though the committee’s findings fall short — ignoring for example, the Security Council’s anti-Israeli bias, the Human Rights Commission’s embrace of dictators or the Refugee Organization’s unwillingness to keep terrorists from overtly using U.N.-administered camps in the Middle East as recruiting centers — they are telling nonetheless. U.N. failures in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Congo are as inescapable as the well-documented collapse of the Iraqi disarmament program in the 1990s that led to the current U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, because the report’s authors are U.N. bureaucrats and the U.N. their sinecure, the committee is unwilling to suggest the unthinkable: doing away with the Security Council as irrelevant to 21st century realities. Yet that is the inescapable conclusion for democracies bearing the burden of an increasingly expensive, moribund bureaucracy proven inadequate for its founding purpose. The anemic prescription for improvement is ludicrous: recognizing the legitimacy of pre-emptive military action, so long as it passes a U.N. test for approval. So is the report’s proposal to expand the Security Council from 15 to 24 members.

Courage, once Dan Rather’s favorite word, demanded a more realistic proposal: keep the General Assembly open as a place to debate how many blankets are needed to help assuage a humanitarian disaster like an earthquake — and replace the Security Council with a new Democratic Alliance.

Such a proposal will, of course, create great angst from those who believe the United Nations — an entity that till now been unable or unwilling to even define “terrorism” or “democracy” — can somehow resurrect itself. That should not deter those democracies — who know well who they are — from creating an organization capable of bringing multilateral action to bear against foes like al Qaeda, or its ilk. To do less in this window of opportunity invites anarchists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, and rogue leaders like those in North Korea and Iran, to further adventures.

It’s time to scrap the U.N. as we know it today and start over so our children have a better tomorrow.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide