Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« Secretary Rice Goes To Asia: Part Three. | WILLisms.com | The Latest Trustees Report Is Out On Social Security. »

The Most Important UN Reform.

kofi.gif

In response to escalating heat from the U.N. Oil-For-Food scandal, Kofi Annan announced earlier this week that he intends to reform the U.N. The Economist (via Pejmanesque) reports:

He is calling for an expansion of the Security Council, so that it better reflects the global realities of today—though he did not specify how the council’s membership and veto rules should be changed. The Commission on Human Rights would, he proposes, be replaced by a smaller human-rights council, on which it would be harder for tyrants to get seats. To avoid repeats of past stalemates, the UN would agree a definition of “terrorism”, which would be incorporated in a new anti-terror treaty. It would also adopt clearer principles on when military force is justified.

Color us unimpressed.

Watching Annan's press conference on the subject on C-SPAN, it is clear he is the wrong man to lead the U.N. When pressed by a reporter on the subject of unrepresentative governments having a legitimate voice at the U.N., and how that elevation of tyrants undermines global security, Annan told the man that his statement was "not entirely accurate." All the nations of the United Nations represent their people, Annan said.

No, they really don't, Kofi.

The most important reform the U.N. could undertake would be the immediate end to all moral equivalence between fear societies and free societies. Immediately stipulate that a Security Council veto (ahem, China and Russia) is contingent upon civil and political rights back home. No country with a rating of "Not Free" could stifle the will of the free world through its veto. Likewise, no collection of smaller tyrannies should ever stifle the will of the free world.

The U.N.'s most profound problem is that many of its members are not truly representing the free and democratic wills of their people, while the U.N. recognizes nearly all countries as relative equals. Elevating U.N. ambassadors of evil, corrupt regimes to the same level as those from countries where the citizens are free to choose their leaders only assists those illegitimate regimes remain in power.

Moral equivalence affords leaders of countries like North Korea, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, and Rwanda an unfortunate legitimacy that arbitrarily boosts stature back home. The U.N. cannot pass meaningful resolutions urging the spread of freedom in the world, because there are too many fear societies obstructing such progress. Even when the U.N does pass important resolutions, there is no enforcement mechanism other than "unilateral" action by the United States. Lack of enforcement power is the second-most grave problem facing the U.N.; right now the U.N. is almost entirely carrot, without much stick. Developing a way to enforce U.N. sanctions is imperative to the U.N.'s credibility.

The U.N. at present has no moral compass; recall the U.N. Human Rights Commission booting the United States off in 2001, while serial human rights abusers Libya, Syria, and Sudan were all allowed on the Commission. Atrocities and genocide continue to happen in places like Darfur, because the U.N. member nations cannot agree on whether or not systematic mass murder really is "genocide."

Claudia Rosett has more in today's OpinionJournal.com, part of The Wall Street Journal:

There he goes again.

"This hall has heard enough high-sounding declarations to last us for some decades to come," Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the U.N. General Assembly Monday. "What is needed now is not more declarations and promises."

For announcing a U.N. reform program, it was a good start. Had Mr. Annan then apologized for the gross failure of his previous reforms, launched in 1997, and left the stage, there might be a lot more reason to hope the U.N. will shape up.

Instead, Mr. Annan went right on to deliver his latest plan for U.N. reform, by way of a 63-page report stuffed with high-sounding declarations wrapped around dozens of proposals to take most of what the U.N. does wrong, and do lots more of it, with lots more taxpayer money. Mr. Annan took the title for his report from a phrase in the U.N. charter, "In Larger Freedom." Truth in labeling would more accurately read: "In Deep Trouble."

Rosett believes that part of the U.N.'s perpetual ineptitude stems from its central-planning mindset. She writes:

Mr. Annan's plan takes little practical account of a modern world in which competition, private enterprise and individual freedom are the principles of progress. He has his own agenda, which he would like the rest of us to follow and fund.

This is an important point. Mr. Annan and many of the other U.N. administrators do not believe in the values that have made the free world great, including the value of a free enterprise market economy.

Rosett adds:

Someone needs to remind Mr. Annan that every dollar taxed away from the citizens of the rich nations of the world is a dollar less that's available for these same private citizens to buy goods for which there is genuine market-driven demand--that being the real engine of development.

Kofi Annan could never admit such a thing. To do so would undermine his own view of the United Nations as the world's only legitimate voice. Part of Kofi's plan is to provide massive amounts (more than a trillion dollars over the next decade) of aid for poverty relief. Gobs of money doled out by a corrupt bureaucracy (the U.N.) to other corrupt institutions is not the answer. Marxist redistribution of wealth will not solve the problem of world poverty. In fact, large amounts of foreign aid may contribute significantly to long-term poverty because the aid distorts the market and makes people dependent on regular aid flows rather than initiative and true development.

One solution is a Democracy Caucus within the United Nations (a free-society-based solution might very well work without the U.N.). A coalition of truly free societies, with each member nation guaranteeing basic political and civil rights to its citizens, with free and fair elections and free markets, just might give international cooperation a purpose. These countries must also express a commitment to holding human rights abusers accountable; even some democracies such as India, Mali, and South Africa tend to align themselves with non-democratic regimes based on regional interests. Thus, even a coalition of democratic countries is not the panacea for what ails the U.N.

A coalition of true democracies might allow the U.N. to serve its original mission, but not by itself. The selection of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations is promising as the United Nations begins looking at reforms, but it will require a herculean effort to fix the U.N's chronic dysfunction, so our optimism on Kofi Annan's reforms is tempered.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 March 2005 10:23 AM

Comments