The time has come for the United States to consider leaving the United Nations. As parallel as their names sound, the United Nations has some serious problems that should send us flying in a perpendicular direction.

An embattled Kofi Annan needs to reevaluate his own position as part of vast worldwide bureaucracy. He has tried to divert attention away from his own precarious position as it relates to the oil-for-food program scandal with buzz about reform. Last week, Annan released his recommendations on needed U.N. improvements.

Last year, Annan put together an independent panel of men and women to make recommendations on how to best restructure the organization. The panel’s feedback on how to restructure the United Nations was made public in December and included criticism of specific U.N. agencies, the bureaucracy as a whole and was concerned with the lack of U.N. initiative in counter-terrorism.

The most drastic recommendation of the panel was to change the structure of the infamous Security Council. Why infamous, you ask? The core of the Council is its five permanent members that each hold veto power. If one of the five permanent members — the United States, Britain, France, China or Russia — says no to a recommendation or resolution, it fails. The panel suggested that the Security Council be made up of 10 revolving members that would each serve for two years. The idea is that the Security Council is still stuck in the past and needs to better reflect how the world has changed since then.

Annan’s recommendations include a long overdue transformation of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The irony of including Libya, Sudan, Cuba and other notorious abusers of human rights on the commission was, apparently, finally too much for Annan.

Though changing the face of this glib commission is a good idea, the timing of Annan’s recommendations is suspect. The oil-for-food scandal has turned about to be a murky situation. It is still unclear who is responsible for the profoundly mismanaged humanitarian program that was meant to help Iraqis put food on the table despite economic sanctions. The program’s premise was exporting oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, Saddam kept much of the funds for himself through bribery, smuggling and other nefarious deeds.

So how, you ask, does this relate to Annan? That is what the probe, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, is trying to figure out. Tuesday, Volcker released the commission’s second group of findings, declaring Annan at fault for not ensuring that the humanitarian program was run according to its original premise. Though the commission said there was insufficient evidence to accuse Annan of criminal behavior, the circumstances are suspect. A close friend and colleague of Kofi Annan, Iqbal Riza, was identified by the commission as shredding documents related to oil-for-food following the Security Council’s authorization of the Volcker-led investigation.

Kojo Annan, son of the Secretary General, was the source of the most incriminating findings released by Volcker’s commission on Tuesday. The younger Annan’s employer, Cotecna Inspection SA, was hired as a contractor for oil-for-food and paid him twice as much as the company had reported. The commission found that Annan traded based on his father’s position as head of the United Nations and misled his father and inspectors about his business and his compensation. Kofi Annan should have considered the potential conflict of interest involved by awarding the oil-for-food contract to his son’s scandal-plagued employer.

As the United Nations becomes increasingly more out of touch with American interests and moves away from credibility and legitimacy, it is time for the United States to reevaluate our membership in this worldwide bureaucracy.