How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World
by Eric Shawn
Excerpt From Chapter One:“Welcome to U.N. World.”
The United Nations is broken. That is no longer a partisan issue.
Liberals have joined conservatives to question how that noble institution,
the repository of good intentions, has devolved into a global version
of a crooked city hall tainted by what the chief U.N. investigator
of the Oil for Food scandal branded “illicit, unethical, and
corrupt behavior.” U.N. complicity, profiteering, malfeasance,
and ignorance granted Saddam Hussein a free pass for more than a
decade. This crime has emerged as the greatest grand larceny in human
history, a monumental violation of trust by the majority of the permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council: France, Russia and China. In
U.N. World, Iran can race to achieve nuclear capability while blatantly
lying to the Security Council and deceiving U.N. nuclear inspectors
with few serious consequences.
The U.N. was once in vogue. It represented compassion and goodness. That is the U.N. I grew up with and supported. Then the U.N. fell from grace and it is a decline of its own making. The U.N.’s track record is replete with demands ignored, mandates dismissed, and rulings violated.
On October 15, 1999, the Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1267. It demanded that the Taliban in Afghanistan immediately turn over Osama bin Laden for prosecution, a result of Al Qaeda’s deadly bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa a year earlier. The council declaration achieved the same results as if it had been issued by the Kiwanis Club of Cleveland. It was ignored.
If U.N. resolution 1267 had actually been enforced, perhaps 9/11 would not have occurred. It was passed nearly two years before that cataclysmic day. Had the Security Council been taken seriously, the threat posed by Al Qaeda may not have matured, or at least not to the degree that it did. True, Americans were failed by our own government as well, but the failure of the world institution with respect to Al Qaeda calls into question its very reason for being.
In fact, the U.N. seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate Bin Laden’s sponsors. The Taliban’s United Nations ambassador, Abdul Hakeem Mujahid, was not recognized or allowed to be seated, largely at the behest of the United States. But many U.N. officials reportedly disagreed with that decision and publicly sought the Taliban’s inclusion. On September 30, 1998, “The New York Times” said: “U.N. officials…believe that international recognition might change the movement’s distrust and hostility toward the outside world.”
How naïve. In early 2001 the Taliban did throw somebody out of Afghanistan, but it wasn’t Bin Laden, as the U.N. demanded. They kicked out the U.N. The move was in retaliation for Washington’s order to close down the Taliban’s diplomatic office in New York. The U.N. argued against the Bush administration decision, and the Taliban was forced to consider renting office space inside the U.N. building itself as an alternative.
Nearly a year and a half after the Security Council demanded that the Taliban cough up Bin Laden, Kofi Anan sat down with Taliban representatives during a visit to Pakistan. He asked them to abide by the Security Council’s demand to turn over the terrorist mastermind. Yet like the U.N.’s most prestigious body, Annan achieved nothing. Back at U.N. headquarters, Annan didn’t want to discuss his Osama talks. On March 22, 2001, less than six months before 9/11, Annan admitted, “It came up, but I don’t want to go into that.” So much for the U.N.’s moral authority.
The U.N.’s response to September 11th proved as weak as its efforts to rein in the Taliban before September 11th. On September 28th, 2001, more than two weeks after the attack, the Security Council passed resolution 1374, which established the specific Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC). The CTC requires that the nations of the U.N. do not financially support terrorist groups, do not offer safe haven to terrorists, cooperate with other nations in prosecuting terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice. The fact that some members need such reminding speaks volumes about their intentions. “We all have a stake in this struggle,” declared Kofi Annan, “and we must all feel that we are a part of it.”
A special U.N. Al Qaeda committee was also established to monitor Bin Laden’s network. “The world expects the United Nations to exercise leadership in the global campaign against terrorism,” trumpeted a 2004 Security Council resolution. If the world knew better, it wouldn’t.
Despite the urgency, fewer than half the United Nations members had bothered to file the required paperwork on time, forms that merely reported what the nations were supposedly doing to fight terrorism. A U.N. committee concluded that the world body’s reaction to terrorist threats had negligible accomplishments, and was failing. The committee admitted that only 93 of the 191 U.N. members had even filed the basics, blaming a “lack of political will, reporting fatigue, lack of resources and technical capacity and coordination of difficulties at the national level.” Although all agreed that Al Qaeda remained “a major threat to international peace and security,” more nations than not seemed to care less. “We need members states to deliver appropriate information to our committee,” pleaded its chairman, Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Munoz, who asked that the nations also “improve the quality of information.” Bin Laden from his cave managed to outflank the diplomats in the carpeted Security Council chamber in New York.
The report also concluded that Al Qaeda had shown great flexibility and stayed ahead of the council’s own efforts, which included the freezing of assets of suspected terrorist financiers and operatives, and that U.N. antiterrorism measures had little impact. Yet the majority of U.N. members refused to follow through on the terrorist threat. They failed to conform to minimum requirements. If U.N. members do not listen to their own institution, why should Bin Laden and his brethren? Or anybody else?
The U.N.’s Al Qaeda committee held a major briefing on the threats of Bin Laden’s network and what the U.N. could do about it on February 18, 2004. Fewer than half its members even bothered to attend. Only 70 nations out of 191 sent representatives to the gathering.
But still fewer diplomats sought out private Al Qaeda briefings when offered the chance. Although the Al Qaeda committee provided the opportunity to hold meetings “for more in-depth discussions of relevant issues,” no one showed up. Not one person. “Throughout 2004, no Member States availed themselves of this opportunity, despite the Chairman’s frequent appeals to States to do so,” said the committee’s report.
Only in U.N. World would the select group of experts assembled to
confront the most perilous threat facing the globe admit they have
no power, can’t achieve much of anything, and only serve to monitor
the progress or lack there of among member nations.
Sadly, the CTC has a better record than the U.N. terrorism body that
is supposed to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
By mid-2005, the 1540 Committee, named after the Security Council resolution
that created it, still hadn’t even heard anything from seventh-three
countries, nearly 40 percent of the U.N.’s members.
“We really must make counter-terrorism the top priority. It is not enough to pay lip service to it,” pleaded an American diplomat, Nicholas Rostow, the general counsel of the U.S. mission. “There remains resistance to outlawing terrorism in all circumstances,” declared Rostow. In other words, some in the U.N. still endorse terrorism. Rostow asked, “Are they going to drain the swamp in which terrorists swim by arresting and prosecuting anyone who commits a terrorist act or supports it? Are they going to do so even if it seems to impugn a cause with which they agree?”
Fat chance when Syria actually sits in on the counter-terrorism meetings.
The quickest way for the diplomats to expose and stop terrorists would be to look to the guy in the suit on their right.
From Chapter Three: “The Pinstripe Posse and the Sultan of Sutton Place.”
Some wear French cuffs and gold watches. Others arrive for work in what’s known as native dress. Others are in the off-the-rack suits from a discounter. One individual, I noticed, wore the same tie nearly everyday. His was a small country.
There are 191 member nations of the United Nations, and each country sends an ambassador to represent its interests. Some live in lavish residences, others in rented apartments, but they all share the distinction of being protected by diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States. No matter how down-to-earth these people are -and I know a few -there’s no escaping the sense of self-importance that comes with the appointment.
“Yes, Ambassador.” Imagine hearing that five hundred times a day. It can really go to your head.
In U.N. World, the largest communist country on earth houses its representative in the black-and-glass shrouded Trump World Tower, a behemoth that soars over the landmark U.N. headquarters a block away. The Chinese ambassador enjoys a bird’s-eye view of Manhattan from this condo where his neighbors pay as much as $14 million for their own pieds-a-terre.
The destitute don’t skimp in U.N. World either.
Yemen is listed as the fourteenth poorest nation on Earth, with an
average gross national income of $465 and, according to the U.S.
Agency for International Development, “a high infant and child
mortality rate and a high maternal mortality rate.” Yemen also
relies extensively on international humanitarian aid. U.N. agencies
provide more than $50 million a year for health, education, and agricultural
projects. Yet Yemen wouldn’t think of renting an apartment
for its ambassador or stashing someone in Brooklyn. In U.N. World,
even nations on life support go first class. In July, 2005, the Yemenis
snapped up an 1879 neo-Greek five-story Upper East Side Manhattan
townhouse between Park and Madison avenues as the new residence for
its ambassador, Abdallah al-Saidi. “The Wall Street Journal” reported
the sales price: $6.8 million.
The only certainties outside the U.N. building may be death and taxes, but in U.N. World you only have to count on death. Under the U.S. government’s “Privileges and Immunities” benefits, members of the diplomatic corps are exempt from being taxed. On anything, whether it’s a laptop or a Jaguar. The Department of State provides all foreign envoys with a plastic blue-and-gray card that enables the bearer to skip out on paying taxes. I have seen diplomats present their convenient little tax-avoider to save 60 cents in New York City sales tax on their $6.85 cheeseburger deluxe at the Friar’s coffee shop up the block from the U.N.
In U.N. World, ethics rules can be as liberal as the vodka in the tonics.
American congressmen are barred by federal law from receiving gifts worth more than $50. U.N. staff members have enjoyed a more generous allowance. They have seen nothing wrong with setting the gift limit at $10,000. A pair of diamond Tiffany earrings for a spouse or a Patek Phillip watch for yourself or a paid trip to the French Riviera are perfectly acceptable, thank you. After all, U.N. World thrives on polite and solicitous social relations where gifts can serve as a symbol of international friendship and comity, not crass or vulgar gratuities. It took until the winter of 2005 for the United Nations to be shamed into proposing to change this ethical indulgence by restricting the gift limit to $250.
From Chapter Fourteen:“More Money Please”
Fixing what’s broken will be an uphill battle.
With the U.N. now viewed in a more realistic and sobering light, the
skeptics have gained the upper hand for the time being. Blind faith
has been replaced by much-needed critical questioning. No longer
can the U.N. be assumed to be doing what’s right.
There is a large painting that looms over the Security Council chamber.
It hangs behind the semicircular table, a giant reminder of the intent
of those who gather there. In the center, rising from the ashes of
the world war that created the U.N., is a phoenix. It is meant to symbolize
the birth of a new world -let it now stand for the birth of a new U.N.
as well.