A Stitch in Haste

Reuters reports that the United Nations has reduced the field of more than 100 proposals to restructure the Security Council down to two:

--"Six new permanent members without veto power: two from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe and one from the Americas, plus three new nonpermanent members for a two-year term for a total of 24 seats."

--"The second recommendation is for eight seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal. They would include 2 each from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. In addition, this plan foresees one nonpermanent two-year seat for a total of 24."

Of course, rivalries are pre-emptively scuttling any chance for real reform:

Italy, which does not want to be the only large European country without a permanent council seat, opposes Germany; Pakistan opposes India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country in a largely Spanish-speaking continent.

Whatever.

It still seems to me that a unified Europe should mean a unified Security Council seat and that when the Soviet Union dissolved its seat should have dissolved as well, rather than meekly defaulting to a "Russian" seat.

Then again, it also seems to me that the very idea of "permanent veto power," even by the United States, is anachronistic now that almost three generations have passed since the end of World War II and the Cold War has been won. As we showed, rightly or wrongly (I think rightly) regarding Iraq, the U.S. would always have "veto power" over the U.N., even without a permanent seat, or even without a Security Council to begin with.

Then again, it also seems to me that the idea that China, a bloodthirsty Communist dictatorship, is allowed even in the visitors gallery, let alone the Security Council as a permanent member, debases the whole concept of the U.N. as a clearinghouse for peaceful global diplomacy.

Then again, it also seems to me that the same should be said for Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.

Then again, it also seems to me...okay, I'll stop now.

UPDATE: Senator Norm Coleman is calling for Kofi Annan to resign:

Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. The consequences of the U.N.'s ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid.

Okay, fine, whatever. I prefer MartiniPundit's conclusion:

The UN is a corrupt, useless organization which ought to be disbanded. Calling for the resignation of Annan misses the real problem. The United States sends more than a billion dollars a year to an organization which is manifestly our enemy, in which the ambassadors from most countries do not represent the will of their people, and in which graft and corruption are business as usual. Send the whole thing to Brussels.

I vote for Geneva, but Brussels would be okay too.

Related Posts:
Most/Least Corrupt Governments
Deport the United Nations
U.N.-Conscionable
The World Court Strikes Again
The U.N.'s Spam-ish Inquisition

(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)