Time to move the UN
says I, and Victor Davis Hanson‘s asking,
Well, here we are in 2005 with nearly 60 years of the U.N. — and more people have been lost in wars since 1945 than during World War II itself. Americans now distrust the U.N.’s record as much as they might applaud its idealism in theory. Why?
. . .
The hallowed Western liberal idea that collective reason should trump force works with democracies, but how does one persuade a Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein to stop murdering his own and others, without some credible threat of forceful deterrence? And if the American legislative, judicial and executive branches check one another, who or what watchdogs the U.N.?
Why not insist upon a democratic constitution as a prerequisite for a nation to qualify for U.N. membership? Why should France deserve a Security Council seat and not Japan and India — especially since the creation of the European Union should equate to a single European veto? And why promote lifelong U.N. apparatchiks like the stained Kurt Waldheim or Kofi Annan, when outsiders of real accomplishment and proven integrity like Vaclav Havel or Eli Wiesel would make honorable secretary-generals?
. . .
The U.N should move to a Bolivia, Congo or West Bank where hunger, war and strife could be monitored and addressed firsthand.
The hard thing would be deciding which blighted country could possibly deserve the UN. Certainly the folks in Sudan wouldn’t want the UN to be based there: Sudan stages ‘million-man’ march against UN war crimes trial demands. A UN Security Council resolution demands prosecution before the Hague-based International Criminal Court of 51 suspects identified by a UN commission of inquiry in January. Considering how shamefuly the UN has dealt with the war in Sudan, I’m not surprised the Sudanese aren’t willing to comply with anyting UN.