The UN Can't Be Reformed 

Tom Bevan 
May 1, 2006
Yahoo News
Original Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060501/cm_rcp/the_un_cant_be_reformed;_ylt=A86.I0VKKlZEISUAggv9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
On Friday, a bloc of third-world nations scuttled efforts to reform the United Nations, claiming that the proposed changes would give too much power to rich nations and, according to the UN Ambassador from South Africa, would violate the right of every member state to have an equal say in the decision making of this organization. Thus has the UN proved once again it is an organization with a serious credibility problem that is incapable of meaningful reform.
Just how bad is it? In an interview published this morning in Britain's Telegraph newspaper, US Ambassador John Bolton describes life at the UN this way:
This atmosphere is like a bubble. It is like a twilight zone. Things that happen here don't reflect the reality in the rest of the world. There are practices, attitudes and approaches here that were abandoned 30 years ago in much of the rest of the world. It's like a time warp. 
U.S. contributions account for more than 1/5 of the U.N.'s total annual budget, and while Bolton has not threatened to suspend payment of those dues, expect pressure from Congress for some sort of penal action against the U.N. to grow.
Last June, the House passed a bill 221-184 - over the objections of the White House - calling for the U.S. to withhold payment of up to half its dues if the U.N. did not adopt a series of budget cutbacks and reforms, including the establishment of an independent oversight board and an ethics office. Congressman Henry Hyde characterized the bill as radical surgery, but added, Sometimes that's the only way to save the patient.
Next week the U.N. general assembly will hold elections for a new 47-member Human Rights Council to replace its discredited predecessor, the U.N Human Rights Commission, which over the years allowed seats to go to notorious human rights abusers such as Syria, Libya, Cuba and Sudan. This time around will likely be no different, and Senator Bill Frist is already urging the U.S. to withdraw support for the new U.N. body, saying that despite superficial 'reforms,' this new body is all too susceptible to being compromised by the world's worst offenders of human rights.
This, of course, comes on top of the most recent outrage (previously mentioned here) of Iran being elected to a Vice-Chairmanship of the U.N. Disarmament Commission back on April 17 and the ongoing taint from the massive oil-for-food scandal.
All in all the U.N. has been making a mess of things lately and demonstrating why meaningful reform is going to be impossible. The reality is that it's both unreasonable and impractical for third-world countries to demand equal say to first rate powers in U.N. decision making. Zambia is never going to be treated equally to the United States or Japan, nor should it be. That doesn't mean the concerns and interests of second and third world countries shouldn't be addressed, but it does mean that the smallest member states that actively thwart the interests of the largest member states jeopardize the viability of the entire system.
If this sort of thing continues it's possible that at some point in the future we could see large member states forming and funding their own organizations (coalitions of the willing, you might call them) to address issues like Human Rights and non-proliferation, in which case some smaller member states at the U.N. might learn that having a small voice is better than having no voice at all