What can the United Nations possibly accomplish in its “action” against WMDs?

Pardon the snickering over a recent headline that said: “U.N. resolution threatens punishment for terrorists trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.”

What punishment, by whom, and how?

The Associated Press story says the U.N. Security Council has put terrorists, black marketeers and crooked scientists on notice that they face punishment for WMD activity.

Seven months after President Bush called for U.N. action, the council voted, unanimously, to close a loophole that allowed would-be proliferators to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. International treaties now target weapons proliferation by governments — but there are no laws to prevent “non-state actors” such as terrorists, black marketeers and unscrupulous individuals and private companies from obtaining such weapons.

What difference can a U.N. resolution possibly make? How could it possibly mete out any penalties of worth?

The resolution requires all 191 U.N. member states to pass laws to prevent “non-state actors” from manufacturing, acquiring or trafficking in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the materials to make them and the missiles and other systems to deliver them.

Too little, too late and quite questionable.

The intentions are good, of course, if naive. And it would be marvelous if everyone involved could suddenly become law-abiding and decent. But what effect can a warning and “threat” to terrorists and their ilk possibly accomplish except to generate derision?

The United Nations which has dragged its feet on so many international issues has no way to impose penalties on renegade countries, groups and individuals. If the world group ever decided to crack down on some target, guess which nation would get the first call to take charge — and be the first to be criticized if things did not work out right? The United States, of course.

Increasingly, the United Nations which for years has existed through the largesse of the United States — and which so often has been so reluctant to help in critical times — has become an ineffective debating society. The United Nations is more tolerated than respected and any formal action it tries to take in matters such as this only highlights further just how weak the agency is.