The most important omission in Annan's proposal was stringent (and I mean really stringent) economic transparency. Without that, there can be no real reform at the UN. It's all blablabla.

Nice post. Unfortunately, you are correct. The UN is a joke.

The whole world knows the West is best, when we do things ourselves! If anyone can transform the world through sheer force of will, it is the United States of America. And the world knows this. Most humans yern to be free, but there are dark forces in our way!

I don't think Kojo Annan's activities will or ought to affect UN reform proposals unless there is evidence of any wrongdoing by Kofi Annan personally.

As for UN transparency what is the evidence that the UN is any less transparent than other international institutions or for that matter major governments including the US government?

When it comes to the recent scandals in Iraq it certainly appears to be more transparent. There have been several investigations including one conducted by the UN itself and headed by Volcker which has issued an interim report critical of the UN's head for Oil for Food: Brendon Sevan. So there does exist a reasonable degree of self-scrutiny.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about US economic management in Iraq including its management of Iraqi oil. Transparency International has said that there is a danger that Iraqi reconstruction will become the biggest scandal in history.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4353491.stm
And I don't know if there are any detailed investigations similar to Volker's. Perhaps they should send him to look into what's going on in Iraq after he is done with oil-for-food.

Did he leave the U.S. off his list of democracy-promoting organizations since it doesn't qualify as an 'organization'? Even so, since the EU got a nod you'd think the US would get some props. werd.

Well, if anyone should know about scandals in the family that should lead to resignation, its the Bush family. [ Neil Bush and S&L anyone ?]. Not to mention Cheney at Haliburton

Now, having got that ad hominem attack out of the way, I agree that the UN should be reformed. A lot of the UN bodies are just debating chabmbers or an excuse for diplomats to waste their home country's finances. I agree that UN Human Rights council is a joke. Why is UNMOVIC still around 2 years after the Iraq war ended ?

On the other hand, there are good UN bodies like UNICEF. Similarly, there is some advantage to having a lot of diplomats in one place to get a critical mass. The fact that is in New York pumps some money into the local economy as well, even if diplomats don't pay parking tickets.

The Security Council does need to be reformed. India and Brazil should definitely be permanent members.

I would add USMC to the list of organizations that do more then the U.N. to promote and protect demodracy.......

Ah, the Carefully Crafted Compromise (TM) no part of which can be altered or dispensed with if the whole is not to collapse like a house of cards. Good luck to Mr. Annan in selling this idea.

On one specific point: what is the sense in making an African country a permanent (or semi-permanent, whatever that is supposed to mean) member of the Security Council? Of the three largest African countries not now in complete chaos two (Egypt and South Africa) address regional security issues only with great diffidence and one (Nigeria) has persistent internal political turmoil. The fact that a disproportionate number of the places where barbarism and and the threat of massacre dominate life are in Africa is no recommendation for a permanent African seat on the Security Council.

Well that's obvious, the UN operates by its own mechanisms of affirmative action.

Africa gets a permanent seat for the same reason that the US was kicked off the human rights counsel and replaced by the Sudan.

Diversity is more important than actual substance.

India & Brazil? PULL-eaze! Try UK & France give up their two seats to one for the EU and then add on Japan to keep the number of permanent members at cinco. Any questions?

India & Brazil? PULL-eaze! Try UK & France give up their two seats to one for the EU and then add on Japan to keep the number of permanent members at cinco. Any questions?

Yes, lots. In the first place, there is absolutely no justification for denying India a permanent Sec Council seat. India has a population of 1 B people, its a democracy, its a nuclear power, and its economy is expanding rapidly. India's population is twice that of the EU and 4 times that of the US.

Brazil is a less obvious choice, but its the economic powerhouse of South America, it has a population 2/3rds of the US, its a democracy and could probably build nukes if it wanted too.

Well that's obvious, the UN operates by its own mechanisms of affirmative action.
....
Diversity is more important than actual substance.

So you're saying that Africa deserves no representation at all in the Security Council ? This is not affirmative action -- its pure democracy, you know the system that the neocons claim to want to push ?

Nigeria is not a bad choice. Its a democracy, its very populous. Although it suffers from mismanagement, it is oil rich and could be an economic powerhouse as well. And Nigerian troops have taken part in peacekeeping in Africa. The other possibility is South Africa --- much smaller population wise, but with a larger economy. I'm leary about Egypt for several reasons.

The idaa for the Permanent Members would be members that are some combination of reasonably powerful, reasonably democractic, populous, reasonably prosperous/look like fast developers.

The obvious choices: USA, India, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, China, Russia, possibly Nigeria. If politics dictates letting one Muslim country in, Indonesia is probably the best bet.

UK and France may be declining military powers and Germany and Japan declining economic powers, but for now their influence is substantial. China is the one country that is not even remotely democratic in the above list, but it would be hard to have any sort of reasonable council without China.

As I understand it Japan,India,Brazil and Germany are working together to join the UNSC so it's likely that all four will be part of any expansion.

If these four are made permanent the obvious gaps are Africa and the Muslim world but I am not sure that any country is really suitable. Nigeria is too poor, South Africa too small and Indonesia isn't that representative of the Muslim world. Perhaps those parts of the world can be given an increased share of the non-permanent quota at the expense of Latin America and particularly Europe. Also there is the possibility of offering them increased development assistance instead. This is where Annan's "grand bargain" approach makes sense; with more moving parts you can make everyone happy with something.

The big issue is the veto. I doubt the big four aspirants will accept a permanent second-class status in the UNSC; at the same time the current five don't want 9 veto-bearing powers. Perhaps a compromise can be managed with a temporary non-veto status for the four with the possibility left open for a veto at a later point.

In fairness, the UN promotes democracy much more than the Arab League. What about the African Union?