July 31, 2007

UN Security Council Inept, Unnecessary

by Donald G. Mashburn

The United Nations Security Council has shown it’s inept, ineffective, and useless. It proved its irrelevance in dealing with Saddam Hussein a period of some 12 years. It’s now showing its ineptness in the Darfur Region of Sudan, Iraq, and just about any area that has suffered wanton violence from terrorists, a term, which has become synonymous with Islamic extremists.

It’s clear that free nations can’t trust the Council to rein in rogue groups and nations that don’t want to play by the rules of civilized nations. The Security Council should close its doors and acknowledge that it was a poor, although well intentioned, idea poorly executed.

The Security Council dithered and dawdled on forcing Saddam Hussein to “immediately” disclose certain weapons or face “serious consequences,” as required by the resolution. The Council was stymied by China, France, Germany and Russia, who wanted to protect their lucrative trading arrangements with Iraq. Before the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the world watched as Saddam yo-yoed the Security Council at will, and even had its chief inspector “negotiating” points that had been clearly set out in a Security Council Resolution that had received unanimous approval.

In the past, at crunch time, the Security Council, influenced by the likes of France, Germany, and Russia has pleaded for “more time” – anything, it seems – to avoid facing up to those bent on doing indescribable violence to innocents. It’s clear that the Security Council inept in dealing with rogue nations and “movements” that have as their main objective terrorism.

The U.N. does a few useful things, such as humanitarian relief projects, but not many. And none efficiently. Even well intentioned efforts get mucked up when they fall into the shaky hands of the Security Council, and someone like France threatens a veto of the good deeds.

Admittedly, the United States has used the veto, but mostly to protect our interests from schemes that were detrimental to freedom and economic fairness. Most of the vetoes came during the cold war era, and were aimed at thwarting the will of the Communist bloc nations.

But never before have we seen the ludicrous situation that arose when France threatened to veto a new resolution that called for enforcing a previous Security Council resolution, SCR 1441, against the Saddam Hussein regime. That was the silly position that France and Germany maneuvered the Council into. And because of the threatened veto by France, the Council was helpless – and useless.

The veto has often been a problem. And it could well be time to get rid of it, but based on the United Nations’ record, it will probably never happen. Also, the United States has used it to thwart some really ugly attempts to undermine American freedoms and sovereignty.

If the veto is retained – and China and Russia surely will insist on keeping it – France should be replaced by a more deserving member, say Japan, or India, with a sixth of the world’s population. These nations would be much more representative than France, which hasn’t been a world power for more decades than most of us can remember. However, the United Nations charter probably won’t permit replacing France –the French surely would not agree to it.

But perhaps a better solution would be for the United States to leave the Security Council, keeping its other United Nations positions. This would strip the Council of any claim to be an effective body, or to have legal standing to settle disputes between nations.

The best solution of all, of course, would be for the entire UN to fold its tent, admit its ineptness, and let it’s representatives return to their homes and improve conditions there, instead of living the affluent, expensive, and money-wasting life in New York.

In any event, with its ineffectiveness in the Middle East, and its weakness and unwillingness to act on behalf of the victims of Islamic extremists in places like Darfur, the Security Council has shown its paper proclamations are useless.

If the Security Council – or better, the UN – closed shop, the world would be better off.