Much of the world became livid this week when the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations submitted amendments to the latest draft on U.N. reform. Among other things, the member nations want to include references on the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Treaty and an increase in development assistance by wealthy nations. The United States would like references to combating terrorism, stopping weapons of mass destruction proliferation and an actual functioning United Nations.

The issue at hand is the fundamental difference at the way the world views the United Nations. When Oil-for-Food began to unfold, the United States demanded investigations and transparency. It appears the rest of the world was looking to get a piece of the action instead. For reference, Oil-for-Food was the program where the United Nations allowed Iraq to sell oil to get food. The problem is Iraq wasn't buying food and France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. knew it. While the United States was being bashed in the press for starving Iraqi children, the program that was meant to feed them was used to enrich those countries instead. Al-Qaida used three items to recruit members: Israel, the post-Gulf War I poverty of Iraq and the United States presence in Saudi Arabia. Because of Oil-for-Food, al-Qaida was able to recruit the terrorists that struck us on Sept. 11, instead of being a cheap Hamas knock-off. Because of Oil-for-Food, sanctions were demonstrated as ineffectual because those charged with enforcing them were busy taking bribes instead. If the United Nations and the member nations did what they were supposed to do, the invasion of Iraq probably would not have happened.

Looking at the Human Rights Commission shows the immediate absurdity the United Nations has become. In Geneva in 2004, they were awarded a seat on the Human Rights Commission for their valiant attempts at wiping out Christians. Human Rights stalwarts like Cuba, Pakistan, Syria and Lybia all have had, or have, seats. China also has a seat exposing the irony of the pro-choice crowd celebrating women having the choice to kill their kids but apparently don't care about whether women have the choice to keep their uterus or not. A human rights commission that can't call ethnic cleansing genocide, in part, because the government involved has a seat on the very commission should be absurd to anyone.

When the tsunami struck Southeast Asia, the United States Navy was there first. While millions are displaced and hundreds of thousands of people are being killed in Sudan, the United States is seemingly the only one willing to call genocide, genocide. When North Korea threw aside the non-proliferation treaty that they were violating anyway, the world looked to the United States, not the Security Council, to solve the problem.

Expanding the Security Council will only increase the absurdity that is already in the U.N. When the United States expressed a desire to end the Iraq situation, France and Germany strenuously objected. A few years later, we found out that their hands were dirty with Oil-for-Food. Mexico told us that if we were going to get their vote, we needed to give Social Security benefits to the illegal aliens that have worked in the United States and since returned to Mexico. Turkey demanded an $88 billion dollar bribe for their cooperation. No matter where you stand on the war, when it was debated at the U.N., no one nation apparently looked at the merits - they looked to their own self-interests. Adding more than twice the number of permanent seats will only increase the number of agendas involved and will paralyze any action the Security Council will ever take, no matter how noble.

If anything, the United Nations needs a no-nonsense ambassador to tell people like it is. John Bolton, with his aggressive personality, is just the man to expose the absurdity that has become of a once-noble idea.

John Bambenek is a university employee and a graduate student. His column appears every Friday. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.