The Useless United Nations

Daily Iowan - Opinions
Issue: 9/24/04

The useless United Nations
By Robert Schneider

Built upon the post-World War I ash heap that was the League of Nations, in 1945 the United Nations was conceived with the idealistic goal of ensuring that future generations would not be subjected to the same horrors of combat that the founding generation experienced. Composed primarily of World War II Allies, the United Nations was envisioned as an organization in which the countries of the world would solve problems with diplomatic rather than military means. With the laudable, if unrealistic, aims of preventing needless wars and advancing humanitarian causes, the United Nations faithfully served its purpose for all of five years. Then, with the advent of the Cold War, the Security Council was subjected to the same self-serving chess game that (surprise) is endemic to any political organization. Thus, the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the Security Council was exercised 78 times by 1955, with the obstructionist Soviet Union accounting for 75 of those.

Since then, the organization has spiraled even further into futility, most notably witnessed this week when U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the war in Iraq to be "illegal." This sentiment, shared by the left-wing "humanitarians" who curiously ignore the voluminous evidence of Saddam's human-rights atrocities, is emblematic of the sanctimoniousness that is the hallmark of both Annan and the organization he presides over. Consider that in 1999, when NATO forces marched into the butchering grounds of the genocidal dictator Slobodan Milosevic, there was no U.N. authorization for such action. As such, the outrage from the U.N. camp was predictably muted, as public opinion certainly prevailed upon ending the rampant ethnic cleansing rather than adherence to an antiquated world order. Yet suddenly, Annan is compelled to voice outrage when a similarly evil dictator is toppled, most likely because of the vocal cheering section he finds in Saddam's favorite business partner, France.

Or we could consider the recent U.N. verdict, which condemned Israel's right to build a security fence along its Palestinian border because of "humanitarian concerns," that was delivered by China, the communist country whose army murdered thousands of its own peacefully demonstrating citizens in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Then there is the recent matter of genocide in Rwanda, a tragedy the United Nations chose to ignore and, consequently, the death toll climbed into the millions.

With a track record that evinces such impotence and inefficacy, it is remarkable that Annan feels no hypocrisy in delivering moral sermons to the 34 nations that brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's despotic rule. Perhaps if Annan wishes the world to turn its collective eye upon matters of illegality, he should cease shrouding the activities of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program in secrecy. This program, set up in April 1995 and implemented in December 1996 under the aegis of the United Nations, allowed Saddam to sell oil in exchange for money to purchase food and humanitarian supplies. With typical incompetence, the United Nations left oversight of the program largely in Saddam's hands, allowing him to pick his own business partners, and kept the details of these deals within the U.N. governing body.

Only recently has the truth started to emerge, specifically with the General Accounting Office estimate that Saddam managed to pocket $10 billion from these sales for himself and his military. Currently, the investigation of Benon Sevan, the former head of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program accused of receiving lucrative kickbacks from Saddam, continues despite Annan's refusal to open the United Nations' record books for investigators.

So it is a small wonder that many Americans seethe with anger over Annan's posturing. Indeed, it is the luxury of a spoiled diplomat to decry a war as "illegal" from the comfort of Manhattan, while American soldiers give their lives to bring democracy to a desperately poor and oppressed people. The United States is demonstrating itself to be an entity that rogue dictators must take seriously. If only the United Nations, with its meaningless resolutions and corrupt officials, could do the same.

While the United Nations was created with a noble purpose, it has degenerated into an organization that essentially bears little resemblence to its original goals. That doesn't mean we should leave it, but neither does it mean we should abdicate our national soverignty and security to it, as it's quite apparent John Kerry and many Democrats would.

For all intents and purposes, the United States is the only nation with the resources and ability to secure and defend freedom in the world today. That doesn't mean other nations don't assist, such as the Brits, Austrailia and many others, just that none have our ability to project and use the necessary power and force. Now does that mean we should insert ourselves in every war and squabble that comes up? No...we have to pick and choose our battles, and we always haven't been very good or smart about that. We're stuck in the Balkans where the Europeans stood by and did nothing waiting for America to do something about it even though it's in their back yard. Bill Clinton got us involved there where we have no strategic interest...no wonder the Europeans love him...they steamrollered him to do their work at our expense, plus it gave him the excuse to change the subject from his dalliances and scandals while in office.

A commentator once made an observation regarding the United Nations after 9/11 that seem most appropriate...he said the World Trade Center should be rebuilt grander and taller than the original...and the top thirty floors should be the new headquarters of the UN. We'll see how they treat terrorism when they're the ones on the top floors of a target.