The Security Council is the United Nations=92 most powerful body. It is
the one body in the United Nations system with the power under the UN
Charter to dispatch military and peacekeeping operations, impose
economic sanctions, mandate arms inspections, and enforce resolutions
against international human rights violations. In short, it is
charged with the guardian****p of international peace and security.
Out of 191 member states in the United Nations, all of whom have an
equal vote in the General Assembly, only fifteen are members of
Security Council. Five Security Council members - the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China =96 have permanent seats
with a veto power over any Security Council decisions. Ten are
elected by the General Assembly for two year terms, based on regional
representation. Decisions on policy matters require nine votes,
including the votes of all five permanent members.
The Islamic countries obtain their fair share of the nine rotating
seats. Their interests on the Security Council are always
represented. Not satisfied with this representation or their
strangulation of the United Nations Human Rights Council and
domination of the General Assembly, however, the 57 member
Organization of Islamic Conference also wants a permanent, veto-
bearing Islamic seat on the Security Council. Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said this month that Islamic countries
must secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council because =93the
Islamic world has been deprived of the power to defend itself=94.
The most significant threats to international peace and security today
emanate from the Muslim world, a dubious qualification for aspiring to
co-equal status with the five current permanent members of the
Security Council:
Iran has flouted a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling
on Iran to suspend its illegal uranium enrichment program designed to
develop a nuclear bomb that will destabilize the entire Middle East
and beyond. It intends to become a member of the world=92s nuclear club
and the major Islamic power in the Middle East facing off against
Israel and the West. In a clear demonstration of its contempt for the
Security Council=92s original purpose under the UN Charter, the
Organization of Islamic Conference is endorsing Iran=92s bid to occupy a
seat on the Security Council for the period 2009-2010. This will
give Iran the foot in the door it is seeking to convert this rotating
seat into an Islamic permanent seat and prevent any further
interference with its nuclear ambitions.
The global terrorist movement today is made up almost entirely of
Islamists who regularly assert that their supremacist religion
commands them to carry out their deadly deeds. Many thousands of
murders have been carried out by jihadist Muslims invoking their
understanding of the Prophet Muhammad=92s teachings. Saudi Arabia and
Iran =96 the two most influential Muslim countries in the world today =96
fund such terrorist groups directly or through front organizations.
Pakistan =96 the only Islamic nation possessing nuclear bombs today =96 is
at the epicenter of al Qaeda=92s home base of terrorism and is one coup
away from becoming a full-fledged nuclear armed terrorist state
itself.
With the possible exception of Turkey, there are no stable,
pluralistic democracies that respect individual rights in the Muslim
world. The Muslim world is largely a breeding ground for Islamic
extremists to use terrorism as the means to create their conception of
utopia on earth - a single Islamic state, known as the =91Caliphate=92,
which would stretch from Indonesia to Morocco and beyond, contain more
than 1.5 billion people and then spread by force to the rest of the
=91non-believer=92 world. Yet the Organization of Islamic Conference
claims that a permanent seat on the Security Council for an Islamic
state is a necessity to combat what they consider the world=92s worst
scourge of terrorism - Islamophobia in the West.
The Islamists regularly make a mockery of the UN bodies where they
already exert undue influence. The Organization of Islamic
Conference places Shari'ah, or Islamic law, above the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and is misusing the United Nations to
impose its illiberal worldview on everyone else. Any criticism of
Islam, Islamic law, or of Islamic states is unacceptable. Following
up on its successful campaign in the General Assembly to pass the
=91defamation of religions=92 resolution, the Organization of Islamic
Conference is now looking to the General Assembly to legitimize the
taking of legal action against those who criticize Islam or caricature
its symbols. The Human Rights Council has become the laboratory for
Islamists=92 retrograde ideology in opposition to individual
freedoms.
The latest outrage occurred last week when representatives from
Pakistan and Egypt insisted that there be no critical mention of
Shari'ah during Human Rights Council sessions. Islam, said the
Egyptian delegate, "will not be crucified in this Council". The cause
of this latest assault on freedom of expression was a brief speech on
behalf of two non-governmental organizations, the International
Humanist and Ethical Union and the Association for World Education,
asking Muslim countries to address the "honor killings" and female
genital mutilation carried out under the auspices of Shari'ah. Now
the defenders of Shari'ah want to extend their atavistic brand of
obstructionism to the Security Council by gaining a veto power over
any actions that the Security Council might try to take to defend
freedom.
It is said that the Security Council=92s permanent member****p no longer
represent today=92s world. This has led to widespread calls for major
reforms and for =91democratization=92 of the Security Council=92s
governanc=
e
structure. However, it is an oxymoron to expect that adding
undemocratic countries to the list of permanent members will
democratize the Council. Instead, they will end the majority of
permanent seats that democracies hold today and will certainly prevent
the Security Council from performing any constructive problem-solving
role. The two current authoritarian permanent members - China and
Russia - are far from being ideal stewards of the veto power but they
have gone along with at least some sanctions against Iran and Sudan.
And they have eschewed outward aggression and sponsor****p of terrorism
in recent years. It is a foregone conclusion that if Iran itself were
not to occupy a new permanent Islamic seat on the Security Council it
will not tolerate a permanent seat for any other Islamic country that
does not hew closely to its aggressive line.
Some have suggested aboli****ng the veto power altogether while
expanding the number of permanent members to include Islamic, African
and Latin American member states. While a blunt instrument to be
sure, keeping the veto in the hands of responsible countries prevents
the kind of manipulation that the Islamists have regularly employed in
other UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. If expanding the
number of permanent members is to be considered, democratic countries
with large mixed populations (including a substantial Muslim
population) such as India or democratic countries that contribute very
heavily to the UN=92s budget such as Japan have far superior claims to
permanent seats than does any authoritarian member of the Organization
of Islamic Conference.
Even in the immediate aftermath of the horrors of 9/11, according to
State Department and UN records, the Islamic countries have on average
voted against the United States=92 position on issues more than 80% of
the time. These include our so-called allies such as Saudi Arabia,
with a 90% record of opposition, and the Gulf States of Qatar (now a
member of the Security Council) and the United Arab Emirates, with an
88% record of opposition. Even Kuwait, whom we saved from the
clutches of Saddam Hussein, has voted against the United States 86% of
the time. By contrast, the democratic state of Israel voted with the
United States about 90% of the time.
The response of the United States to any attempt by the Islamists to
gain a permanent, veto-bearing seat on the Security Council or to
abolish the veto power of today=92s five permanent members should be the
same as that of one of President Harry Truman=92s emissaries to the San
Francisco conference that was held to complete the drafting of the UN
Charter, when faced with analogous cir***stances. The emissary, Texas
Senator Tom Connally (chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee), put down a rebellion of smaller countries complaining
about the Security Council veto granted only to the United States, the
USSR, United Kingdom, China and France. Connally did so by simply
ripping up a copy of the UN Charter in front of their representatives
and saying: =93If you want a charter, you can have a charter with the
veto or no charter at all.=94
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3D2A72CD08-7A00-41F9-AE=
C9-34CDA0A36855
|
