But where exactly in the U.N. charter does it say that a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people should not be judged and punished by his own people as they see fit?  Where does the U.N. charter give the United Nations any authority to outlaw the death penalty if carried out pursuant to the duly authorized legal processes of a member state?  In fact, the charter confers no such authority.  Nor is there any provision in any international treaty abolishing the death penalty.  Even as ardent a death penalty opponent as the director of Human Rights Watch, Richard Dicker, conceded that “you will not find anything that says the death penalty is banned.”

The U.N. has no legal standing to confer or deny legitimacy on its member states’ actions, let alone any moral standing to do so in light of its own sorry record in failing to protect the human rights of the many innocent victims of genocide world-wide. Ban recognized this simple fact when, in response to reporters’ questions on his reaction to Saddam’s hanging, he said that “the issue of capital punishment is for each and every country to decide.” He kept the focus squarely on where it belonged: "Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against the Iraqi people,” Ban said. “We should never forget the victims of his crimes.”

Kofi Annan thought otherwise, embracing some of the world’s worst dictators including Saddam Hussein as his partners in peace, while declaring after Saddam was captured by American forces that he and the United Nations opposed capital punishment.  "As secretary general, as the UN, as an organization, we are not going to now turn around and support the death penalty," he said.

The New York Times has it all wrong as usual.  It is the new Secretary General, not Annan, who shows an appreciation for the true values of the U.N. charter and the limitations on its authority. Ban Ki-moon’s statement on capital punishment shows his recognition that the charter enshrines the principle of national sovereignty.  His comment on the crimes of Saddam Hussein shows that he understands the difference between a murderous, aggressive dictator who was a threat to international peace and security and the duly elected leaders of democratic governments who were trying earnestly to have the U.N. live up to its original mission to take collective action against such threats.

The Times laments that Ban Ki-moon was chosen by the big powers in the Security Council to serve in the role of “a low-key bureaucrat who wouldn’t rock the boat.”  Why shouldn’t those countries – particularly the United States – which pay the bulk of the U.N.’s budget have the primary say in deciding who will be in charge of spending our taxpayers’ money? The majority of free-loading member states already have way too much to say by virtue of the one-state, one vote procedures of the General Assembly on virtually every issue including final budget approval.

Having defied the Times’ line on the issue of capital punishment, Ban would be wise to follow up by ousting from the U.N. Secretariat one of the paper’s favorite people: Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor who was appointed as Special Advisor to Kofi Annan and whom the Times once praised as "the most important economist in the world." Sachs’ charge at the United Nations was to devise and implement one of the largest wealth redistribution plans ever created in the hope of ending world poverty in one fell swoop, known as the Millennium Development Project.

The absurdity of this morality play, in which Sachs tried to cast himself as the apostle of truth against the selfish capitalist creed of the United States, was matched only by the vacuity of his utopian ideas and his flawed research.  Sachs tried to use his report’s statistics and “research” findings to mount world pressure on the United States to subsidize his preferred social policies — all under the mantle of the United Nations. Indeed, Sachs’ Millennium Development Project report even attempted to justify global taxes to fund its ambitious agenda, and this was on top of the 0.7 percent of Gross National Income it says should be the targeted foreign aid contributions of each developed country.

Sachs has not gotten very far with his socialist agenda. However, he is reportedly still lurking in the shadows, trying to convince the new Secretary General to do his radical bidding on such issues as global warming. He has also criticized “the daily demonizing of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah” which, in Sachs’ words, is the same “as the morbid demonization of Saddam before the Iraq War.” As such remarks suggest, Sachs is one reason why we are constantly treated to demands to negotiate with the Iranian and North Korean dictators -- even though they have proven time and again their utter contempt for international agreements.

One hopes that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will not capitulate to the consensus Sachs represents. Instead, he should return to the original values of the U.N. charter, galvanize the forces of freedom and resist the moral confusion that so tarnished the UN’s reputation under its previous leader. It’s too early in his tenure to measure Ban's success on these fronts. But he is off to an encouraging start.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.