We should at least rename the United Nations

We should reorganize or, at least, rename the United Nations. The name implies unity. With the hegemonic world we live in now and the fact that the most powerful nation, the United States, bypasses international law doesn’t it make having international law a moot point? How can the world abide by an organization and a set of global rules when the most powerful nation in the world doesn’t adhere to them? To the United States the U.N. is just a tool for its foreign policy. John Bolton, the under-Secretary of State for International Organizations, the linchpin of the State Department ties to U.N. affairs during the Reagan administration once said, “There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interest, and when others to go along….. When the United States leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interest to do so, we will do so. When it does not suit our interests we will not� This is a bold, but true, statement if looking at the United Sates and their recent dealings with the U.N. It didn’t suit the U.S. interests to sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor sign onto the World Court so they signed neither. The U.S. didn’t wait until international support for the invasion of Iraq, so they didn’t.
Former Republican Senator Jesse Helms even said that the United Nations are, “the nemesis of millions of Americans.�
Current U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warned the United Nations in November that the U.S. might bypass them to tackle some pressing problems throughout the world if the U.N. does not make changes in management and prevent corruption form occurring again.
I’m not lambasting America or trumpeting the oh so popular U.S. is the devil trumpet but even without the United States and their lack of cooperation the United Nations is failing as an organization with a lack of power, organization, and military capabilities. Even current U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warned the United Nations in November of 2005 that the U.S. might bypass them to tackle some pressing problems throughout the world if the U.N. does not make changes in management and prevent corruption form occurring again.
The United Nations was formed after World War II and within the Charter of the U.N. states the explicit goal, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.� Up until the end of the Cold War there was a system of symmetry between the two global superpowers the Soviet Union and the United States as a, sort of, global checks and balances system. When the Soviet Union fell it left a power vacuum which was taken by the one state with the majority of military might, the United States. This created the hegemonic world we live in today. As we have seen, and as U.S. critics repeatedly point out, there is no check to the power that America can wield so why does it make sense that the U.S. would follow international law on any subject? I’m not implying that they shouldn’t but when looking at the imbalance of military might why should they? We have seen what happens if the world doesn’t agree, the U.S. still moves forward, for example Iraq. The Security Council is not just a tool of the U.S. foreign policy either. Iran has recently expelled inspectors and is going forward with enriching uranium which is used to build nuclear weapons. China gets a vast amount of oil from the Sudan, so they will look to block any military intervention concerning Darfur. France and Russia didn’t want the U.S. to invade Iraq because companies from those two countries were making billions off the Oil for Food program. The Security Council holds the shred of power that the UN does have and within the council the U.S. can trump them all.
Organizational issues have plagued the United Nations from the inception. The United Nations uses a regional rotating basis for chairing committees so because of this outcomes such as the debacle of Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission are able to take place. The Oil for Food scandal that rocked the United Nations and had several respected senators calling for the resignation of Kofi Anan hurt the U.N.’s reputation as over 60 countries were in violation of the program. The Oil for Food program was set up as a humanitarian relief system for the Iraqi people who were suffering from the lack of oil exports in that country. Major oil firms from around the globe and predominately from the aforementioned members of the Security Council made special deals with Iraq to siphon off oil to them for undisclosed billions of dollars that went into the pockets of the Iraqi politicians. This is yet another example of both a lack of leadership in the U.N. as well as a lack of power.
There is also a lack of military might in the U.N. The peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations have been, at best, mediocre. There have been success stories such as East Timor, Haiti, and Sierra Leone, but the conflicts that have taken place and gone unchecked is much greater whether it be Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, or Somalia. A global army with far reaching military might is not an easy task. Madeline Albright, herself a former UN ambassador, once stated, “It is one thing to expect a soldier to risk life and limb defending his or her homeland. It is another to expect that same soldier to travel halfway around the world and perhaps to die while trying to quell a struggle over diamonds, oil, or ethnic dominance on someone else's home turf.�
Overall it’s a system that needs to be reorganized at least. Something needs to change when there are problems within the organization as well as the fact that the most powerful nation belonging to it doesn’t follow its rules. Not to say the U.N. does no good, because it does whether it be eradicating polio or trying to fight AIDS. But the lack of cohesion in the organization is stifling and more to the point; can there be true cohesion when one country holds all the cards? Maybe for a step forward we can at least give it a new moniker. So what to call it, maybe the Somewhat Union of Seconds or the Non-Hegemonic Countries of Limited Unity? Whatever it’s called let us not kid ourselves calling it united, when it is far from.