The House of Representatives last month passed the so-called Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005 (named for its sponsor), which ostensibly sets out to "modernize" the 60-year-old institution by mandating the United States withhold up to half of its U.N. dues if some 32 of 46 "reform" conditions outlined in the legislation are not met by the fall of 2007. But the intent of this bill seems to be to subjugate the U.N. to congressional oversight.
Want money? Clean up your act according to our guidelines.
Wow, America telling the United Nations how to be.
What a great country!
/sarcasm < --duh.
From DCExaminer.com:
Hyde-jacking the United Nations
July 5 '05
By Stephen Schlesinger
Published: Tuesday, July 5, 2005 11:29 AM EDT
The House of Representatives last month passed the so-called Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005 (named for its sponsor), which ostensibly sets out to "modernize" the 60-year-old institution by mandating the United States withhold up to half of its U.N. dues if some 32 of 46 "reform" conditions outlined in the legislation are not met by the fall of 2007. But the intent of this bill seems to be to subjugate the U.N. to congressional oversight.
And while the Bush administration has denounced the proposal as "impermissibly" infringing on presidential authority over international affairs, one wonders why President Bush should be surprised that Republicans in Congress wish to corral the U.N. on their own. After all, they are only taking their lead from the White House, while roiling up their own political base. But these political tricks could have real-world consequences that redound not only to the detriment of the U.S. but also to the harm of the GOP at the ballot box.
Almost from his first day in office, George Bush made it clear he intended to repudiate the multilateralism of the Clinton years and steer the country in a unilateralist direction. He discarded global treaties and downgraded the U.N.'s importance as part of U.S. foreign policy. After Sept. 11, 2001, the U.N. gave its backing to anti-terrorist efforts, including the invasion of Afghanistan, and it appeared the Bush administration might reverse course and embrace the organization's mission. But with the U.S. invasion of Iraq - without U.N. support - came a Bush denunciation of the U.N. for risking League of Nations-like "irrelevance" in failing to back him. Secretary-General Kofi Annan responded by calling the U.S. attack on Iraq "illegal" under the U.N. Charter.
Earlier this year, Bush nominated a notorious U.N.-baiter, John Bolton, to be the next American envoy to the U.N. Given his selection in his first term of two moderate Republicans as the post - John Negroponte and former Sen. John Danforth - it appears that Bush is now paying Annan back for his (and the U.N.'s) opposition to his Iraqi incursion. This is a well-known feature of Bush's take-no-prisoners, political strategy. But even while engaging in this curious gamesmanship, Bush continues to work with the U.N. over Iraq, arranging for the organization to supervise Iraqi elections and help the country write a constitution.
Given Bush's peculiar up and down track record toward the U.N., it may actually make a perverse sort of sense for Republicans in Congress to strike out on their own against the institution. The U.N.'s own mini-scandals in the oil-for-food program as well as reported sexual assaults by its soldiers in the Congo have helped fuel congressional outrage. Still, in advancing their legislation, the conservatives in Congress appear to have deliberately ignored the fact that the U.N. itself is, right now, involved in the greatest reform effort the organization has ever undertaken. Annan last March delivered a set of recommendations to the General Assembly that asked for stark management changes, a restructuring of the Security Council, reforms in the human rights commission, a new definition of terrorism, various new forms of humanitarian protection, controls over nuclear materials and economic aid.
Oddly, many of the Hyde reforms track those proposed by Annan. But the Hyde bill looks more like a tawdry sham. Its approach is guaranteed to alienate the other nations at the U.N. rather than encourage them to adopt reforms.
The bill detracts from White House power: Most significantly, it demands that, until the United Nations accepts Congress' reforms, the U.S. will lower its contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping forces and work to prevent any new peacekeeping operations.
This raises a last question for Hyde: Cutting off peacekeeping funds and ending the 17 current U.N. peacekeeping missions around the globe may rivet the world's attention on U.N. reforms, but just whom does Hyde propose now maintain the peace in Cyprus, the Congo, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and other hot spots around the globe once the U.N. forces are gone - more U.S. troops financed by U.S. taxpayers? Or, on the contrary, does he simply think we should allow these brushfires to ignite into large-scale conflagrations? Neither route is likely to be a great winner back home. Hopefully the Senate will put the death knell to this singularly imprudent legislation.
Stephen Schlesinger is director of the World Policy Institute at the New School University and author of "Act of Creation," a history of the U.N.'s founding. His brother, Robert, edits The Examiner's Politics page.
Copyright © 2005 Washington Examiner
No comments:
Post a Comment