Abolish the UN

Abolishment of the UN should be a vital part of W.'s war on terrorism and re-election plans.

The institution, formed in the period after World War II to mediate the Cold War dispute between the U.S. and Russia has clearly out lived both its usefulness and its credibility.

First, we have the inability for the UN to stand up to Saddam Hussein. Of course, this was caused in no small part to the overwhelming levels of corruption that run rampant in the organization, from Kofi down.

Now, it appears the UN is going to turn its back on millions of additional African people who don't have the money to pay Kofi for his protection services.

As the rainy season starts again in that East African nation, the U.S. Agency for International Development -- the largest food donor to Sudan -- fears hundreds of thousands of people will die over the next nine months. This is no ordinary famine but part of the Sudanese regime's campaign against the African tribes in Darfur, a "strategy of systematic and deliberate starvation," according to a U.N. report that was initially suppressed so as not to offend Khartoum. Already some 30,000 people have been killed by Sudanese troops and Arab militias known as the Jingaweit.

The attacks often start with air bombardments, followed by ground troops and the Jingaweit. Women and even little girls are routinely raped. The attackers burn villages and destroy water supplies and food stocks. The result is the depopulation of wide swathes of land, which the Arab tribesmen then take over. Already one-fifth of the population in an area the size of France is on the run.

The problems the world faces these days is not the threat of M.A.D. that US/Soviet relations promised. Sure, both Russian and China remain potential long term threats but both have tasted the sweet smell of the free markets and are more concerned with expanding their economy than running off to start an un-winnable war with the U.S. Rather, the world faces two main problems in the coming years: First is the continuing threat of war between petty and insignificant third world nations and the resulting genocides that those wars always bring. As a result of the instability these altercations lead to, terrorist breeding grounds continue to thrive in lawless areas and ensure that the propagation of the second greatest problem, global terrorism, will continue.

As the Wall Street Journal (yes, I again urge you to spend the $1.50 on a copy or get a cheap online subscription) points out, the UN, with its bloated bureaucracy and corrupt diplomacy, has now proven itself incapable of responding to these clearly problematic conflicts.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has raised the alarm about Sudan, but once again the "international community" is proving to be feckless, and the Bush Administration has been isolated in its attempts to raise international pressure on Khartoum. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has refused to condemn the Sudanese regime. But what can you expect from a body that includes Cuba, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and, yes, Sudan? When Sudan was re-elected to the Commission on May 4, the American envoy was alone in walking out on what he called this "absurdity."

Meanwhile, Sudan is protected at the morally alert Security Council by China, which supplies the regime with arms and has oil interests there. Fellow Muslim nations Pakistan and Algeria are also loudly silent. Even the Europeans display little interest, arguing that "politicizing" Darfur could threaten a peace deal to end a separate conflict between the regime and rebels in the south.

I say, do away with the UN and replace it with an organization that is more lithe and capable of responding to these situations.

I'll post more on the specifics structure tomorrow.