A Failing United Nations: New Organization Needed to Fulfill Its Mission
Ventura Star, February 28, 2005
By Terry Paulson, PhD

It's time for a change in the U.N. charter and a revitalized mission. It's also the right time for a new organization to achieve what the U.N. will never be able to do.

The problems in the U.N. are there for all to see. When the President's call for resolve in facing Iraq was denied by the Security Council, we shouldn't have been surprised. Setting aside the conflict of interest over the oil-for-food program bribes, the UN has never been an effective military force. It's tough winning any war by a committee made up of strange bedfellows. The U.N. is useless as a united force because its diverse members have different values, different governing models and different national interests. As a result, the U.N. is best at talking, disagreeing and putting off action.

George W. Bush rightly challenged the U.N. to show resolve: "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" As we know, they chose to be irrelevant, and, once again, a coalition of the willing was required to go to war to enforce the very resolutions the U.N. had passed. It's time to face the obvious-the U.N. is incapable of acting strongly in cases of serious Security Council disagreement. It isn't any better in promoting freedom and economic vitality. There are too many members whose very existence requires the suppression of freedom in their own lands. The U.N. cannot be the answer to the world's terrorism problem as long as so many members support and honor the terrorists in their midst.

Some have called for the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N., but that would be a mistake damaging our international image and standing in the world. The U.N. has its flaws, but it still serves a purpose.

The coordinating effort of the U.N. tsunami relief efforts shows that the U.N. can be a force for good in collecting and distributing humanitarian aid. When powers agree, the U.N. can help settle disputes among smaller nations where U.N. mediations and even U.N. 'peacekeeping' forces can be useful. The U.N. also remains the only central forum where the world's countries can gather to debate, negotiate, and exchange views. But these limited missions deserve limited resources and limited expectations. Keep the U.N., but don't make it do what it can't do.

It's time for a bold move built on the President's vision shared in his second Inauguration: "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion. The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

There is evidence of progress. The elections in the Ukraine and in Georgia are bringing renewed freedom to former Soviet Republics. The elections in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine and, now, in Iraq give promise of hope for more democracy and opportunity in Muslim lands. Democracy and freedom are making headway throughout the world. Prior to 1985, less than 40% of the world's population was served by democratic governments. After 2000, that number was 57% and growing. We should be putting our support and foreign aid dollars into supporting democracy, not funding tyranny.

It's time to create a new coalition of the willing-an international body committed to the broader mission of winning the war for peace, liberty and sustained economic opportunity for the developing world. For want of another name, I'd call the new organization the U.F.A., United Freedom Alliance. Membership would be limited to democratic countries committed to the rule of law, free enterprise, and liberty. Member countries would share political and economic support. Most of America's foreign aid could be given to developing U.F.A. members who are taking a stand for freedom and free enterprise.

There would be no Human Rights Commission headed by Libya or by Cuba. There would be no votes by totalitarian regimes, because they would not be members. With minimal exceptions, non-democratic countries shouldn't expect foreign aid.

Bush is the leader who has a vision to match this dream. He must now sell Americans on the importance of helping our international neighbors find ways to improve their own economies and expand their freedoms. When Mexicans can live the Mexican Dream in their own country, our southern borders will cease to be a problem. As developing countries become more prosperous, they are more likely to become new customers who can afford to buy American products and services. The American Dream should never be limited to any one country. I call on President Bush to help create an organization that is committed to making that dream a reality for all. There is no time like now to begin.

The biggest difference between a vision and a hallucination is the number of people who can see it. Can you see what I see?

Terry Paulson, Ph.D., from Agoura Hills, CA, is a professional speaker on making change work and author of The Dinner: The Political Conversation Your Mother Told You Never to Have