UN Changes

[ionelv]

Kofi Annan had an interesting article in Foreign Affairs about his proposed changes at the UN. Here is the juicy part:

No reform of the UN would be complete, however, without Security Council reform. The council's present makeup reflects the world of 1945, not that of the twenty-first century. It must be reformed to include states that contribute most to the organization, financially, militarily, and diplomatically, and to represent broadly the current membership of the UN. Two models for expanding the council from 15 to 24 members are now on the table: one creates six new permanent seats and three new nonpermanent ones; the other creates nine new nonpermanent seats. Neither model expands the veto power currently enjoyed by the five permanent members.

Not touching the veto power would basically keep the broken cart as is, but it will add a few more horses in front of it. In my opinion, the UN system is broken because real changes happen only if ALL of the big five nod (i.e. US, France, UK, China and Russia). That is the reason that the UN is not more than a yes-man for the big five and why the UN hasn't really made a difference in cases where one or more of the big five didn't want to (e.g. US blocking the UN from getting involved in Middle East, France and others blocking the UN from getting involved in Iraq, all five blocking the UN from getting involved in Darfur, etc).

It's interesting to see the right's take on UN change. As an example, Pacepa's view in the National Review is typical. After a long intro in support of Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador, he gets to the point:

The U.S. is the only force on earth that has the moral authority, the experience, and the capability to reform the U.N. It is high time for Washington to take the initiative again, as it did when World War II ended.

That is exactly why the UN isn't working. Just giving the US carte blanche in changing the UN will not make things better. How much more bending-backwards does the US want from the UN? The US has a veto over everything at the UN, they can ignore the UN whenever it's convenient, and the right still bitches about the UN holding the US back? Maybe Pacepa means that the US should withhold its UN monetary contributions even more than it already does, in order to make it even less relevant than it already is?

Comments

[marinav.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised. Pacepa is just like Bush, rather he is so far up Bush's butt, all you can see is his feet. How very annoying! :o/

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

That does not paint a pretty picture. :-P

:-)

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I think the US specifically has done what it can to make the UN as least powerful as possible. Although, I think the far right's anti-UN sentiments have a lot in common with the far left's anti-WTO sentiments: there are some aspects of both that are less than perfect, but having flawed system around is better than none.