Dead-beat America…

On March 11th, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pointed out to members of the House Foreign Relations Committee that although the United States pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s $4.86 billion operating budget, the country is always late with its dues. The U.S. is now is approximately $1 billion behind, a figure that will soon increase to $1.6 billion. In the private meeting, he referred to the U.S. as a "deadbeat" nation. Now why in the name of humankind should the U.S. be taken behind the woodshed for this kind of trash talk?

The concept of the United Nations is basically a good idea. Notice that Pope Benedict, while in the U.S. last year, made it a point to address the UN. However, given the track record of peace-keeping activities (which is the primary reason for its existence), we have to question where its heart lies.

Gobbling up a quarter of its income from this “deadbeat” country of ours, the UN has made some half-hearted efforts to prevent violence, but all too often its attempts wind up failing in its mission.

Last December in Kiwanja, Congo, in little more than 24 hours, at least 150 people, most of them young men were executed by Congolese rebels. And yet, as the killings took place, a contingent of about 100 United Nations peacekeepers was just a few minutes away, struggling to understand what was happening outside the gates of its base. The peacekeepers were short of equipment and men, and they were focusing on evacuating frightened aid workers and searching for a foreign journalist who had been kidnapped. Already overwhelmed, officials said, they had no intelligence capabilities or even an interpreter.

The executions in Kiwanja are a study in the unfettered cruelty meted out by the armed groups fighting for power and resources in eastern Congo. But the events are also a textbook example of the continuing failure of the world's largest international peacekeeping force, which has a mandate to protect the Congolese people from brutality.

When the United Nations does use force, the results are often pathetic. The various national contingents that make up U.N. peacekeeping operations -- Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Brazilians, and the like -- are chosen not for martial prowess but because their governments are willing to send them, often for no better reason than to collect a daily stipend.

Three UN staffers published a controversial book recently. I cannot verify its contents, but if the book's main point is true, it merits consideration. I will use fictitious names, since they have been singled out as "whistleblowers." Their story began a decade ago. John Smith, a doctor, wanted to save lives. Maury Doe, a human-rights lawyer, wanted to save the world. Mary Johnston, a secretary, just wanted to save some money and leave her broken marriage behind. Six years later, after stints in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Liberia, the three came to believe that not only was the United Nations unable to keep pace with its grand ideals in the new world order, it actually allowed genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.

"We didn't start out to write a scandalous book about the U.N.," Smith said. "But it is a scandal that almost a million civilians, who our peacekeepers had promised to protect, were killed in Rwanda and Srebrenica."

"I find it very difficult that not a single U.N. official in the secretariat was investigated or disciplined for those failures," he said. To the trio's collective surprise, their book has served as much as a recruiting tool for the United Nations as a lightning rod for the world body's critics. Imagine the quality of volunteers…

In a world of “haves” and “have nots,” it is not surprising that Ban Ki-moon wants the U.S. to do more and pay on time. However, the make-up of UN peacekeeping forces is pitiful. Why is it that the U.S. always seems to be drawn in to become the world’s peacekeeper by using its military superiority so effectively? It is the oxymoron of the world we live in. The Putins, Chavezes, BinLadens, Ahmadinejads, Jong-Ils, and many others will keep peace from happening as it serves their whims. What would the world be like without the U.S.? The UN Secretary General is head of an organization that cannot carry out its primary mission and no amount of money or public scolding will increase its effectiveness. If he truly wants more of U.S. aid, its forces need a much more professional capability, more troops, and with effective authority to intervene. However, given the makeup of the anti-democracy forces in the Security Council and General Assembly, the U.N. peacekeeping role is a forum for talk, vetoes, and little constructive action. Its footsoldiers reflect that weakness.