|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 7, 2005 / 27 Adar II, 5765 U.N. overhaul not in U.S. interests By Peter A. Brown
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The best reason why Kofi Annan should go is the U.N. secretary-general's effort to nudge the body of sovereign nations toward becoming a fledgling world government.
Not to minimize the scandal that allowed Saddam Hussein to skim $21 billion while under U.N. sanctions or to excuse Annan's son's own alleged corruption. But let's be real.
Unlike in the United States, where someone in his position could not possibly survive politically and might face criminal prosecution, Annan will remain on the job until his term expires next year.
Of course, we all want the United Nations to be a functioning forum for healthy discussion.
That, however, is a far cry from making the United Nations into a global Robin Hood that takes from the rich, gives to the poor, and has increased power to order sovereign nations around.
Sacrificing national sovereignty is fashionable these days. Look at the Continent, where countries have created the European Union to collectively improve their economies, and are branching out into shared political agendas.
But what Annan has in mind on a worldwide scale is a lot more revolutionary. He wants, for instance, Americans and Albanians to acknowledge we are all in this together, and have more than a moral obligation to help our fellow man. He thinks the United Nations should be able to tell nations when and how they can defend themselves.
Some may see U.N. criticism as right-wing nut talk.
If so, they should seriously examine Annan's value system, which prioritizes consensus over national sovereignty and believes peace is always better than war, even in pursuit of a just cause.
Despite the red-state/blue-state divide, Americans agree on the big stuff — democracy, capitalism and human rights — and are pretty happy with the result.
Those views and values set us apart from much of the world.
As good as it might feel to sing "Kumbaya" around the campfire, the United States would be foolish to comply with Annan's attempt to stack the deck.
If you worry about internationalism run amok, then it's worth seriously thinking about what he is proposing.
Annan recently released a 63-page report on much-needed reform of the dysfunctional world body.
In fairness, his plan has worthwhile elements — better control of the U.N. bureaucracy and a definition of terrorism to include all violence against civilians. Believe it or not, that definition would be a major change.
Yet his vision for a more active U.N. mission, guided by a social-engineer mentality that makes Ted Kennedy look like a piker, would be a disaster for the United States.
In essence, Annan is suggesting economic blackmail of industrialized countries. He wants developed nations to be obligated to fork over even more money to help those in need. His plan would quadruple the U.S. contribution, which would dwarf all other nations', while his desire to enlarge the U.N. Security Council would dilute U.S. clout within the organization.
He also would insist that increased economic aid to the lesser-developed countries be seen as a part of the U.N. efforts to prevent terrorism. That sounds nice, but, in effect, he wants to tie governmental political actions to economic progress that only the private sector can achieve.
That's one of those areas where Americans and much of the world disagree. They think governments create wealth (they do, but only in the case of corruption), while we think — and experience shows — that business creates jobs.
This mentality has governed the way the United Nations — not to mention many Third World nations — does business, and explains why it has been so ineffective, and many of those nations are so poor.
However, most worrisome about Annan's vision of a United Nations on steroids would be a change in the balance between national sovereignty and a country's right to take military action in self-defense.
He wants the Security Council to set guidelines on when it is permissible for nations to use military force, and presumably some U.N. force would take action against those who violated those rules. And even more bizarre, he wants U.N. rules that would require any military action be proportionate — in whose eyes? The United Nations', of course — to the threats encountered.
Don't you just love the idea of having the Iranians or Chinese trying to tell Washington how to retaliate against a terrorist attack?
Not me.
How about you?
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
