Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Voters Trust the U.N. to Protect America's Security?
Insight Magazine ^ | 2/16/04 | By Frank Gaffney Jr

Posted on 02/16/2004 12:39:21 PM PST by OPS4

Fair Comment Should Voters Trust the U.N. to Protect America's Security? Posted Feb. 16, 2004 By Frank Gaffney Jr. Published: Tuesday, March 2, 2004 The 2004 presidential election is shaping up to be one of those extraordinary moments in the life of a democracy: Voters actually will have a real choice, not only between candidates but between two sharply divergent philosophies about how to protect America, her people and vital interests.

Reduced to its essence that choice comes down to this: Should we continue to entrust our security to an incumbent president who has, when he felt the chips were down, exercised American power - in combination with "coalitions of the willing," but without the permission of the United Nations? Or should we replace him with someone who condemns such a policy as "reckless" and "flawed" and deeply "ideological," someone who believes firmly that the United Nations is the best guarantor of our safety and who considers its blessing to be essential for our foreign policy and military actions to be "legitimate"?

At this writing, it appears that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) will be the standard-bearer for the latter philosophy. But virtually any of his remaining, declared rivals for the Democratic nomination appear to subscribe to it, as do the former Clinton administration staff members now providing all of them with advice.

This stance is all the more remarkable since President Bill Clinton and Gen. Wesley Clark took the country to war in Kosovo a few years back without the blessing of the United Nations. To be sure, they did seek - and receive - a sort of international cover for this military operation from NATO. But because the war to end Slobodan Milosevic's oppression of the Kosovars was a humanitarian affair, not one of vital strategic interest to the United States, it evidently was legitimate to wage even without U.N. approval.

If President George W. Bush's recent interview on Meet the Press is any guide, the incumbent intends to mount a spirited defense of his decision to use force to effect what was indisputably a strategic interest of the United States - ending the menace posed by Saddam Hussein to the Iraqi people, to the people of the region and to us in America. The stakes are such, however, that he must root his re-election bid in a broader case for avoiding undue reliance on the United Nations.

As it happens, an excellent vehicle for such an important educational mission is at hand. It can be found in Muammar Qaddafi's recent decision to acknowledge having, among other active weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, a long-standing and aggressive covert effort to acquire nuclear arms. This disclosure, and the Libyan dictator's decision to make it to the United States and Britain, not to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), makes the point nicely: The so-called "nuclear-watchdog" organization based in Vienna, like its parent on the East River in New York, simply is not up to the job of keeping us safe.

To the contrary, as often as not the IAEA has been part of the problem - most especially under the leadership of its present director general, Mohamed ElBaradei - not the solution to nuclear proliferation. It repeatedly has missed evidence that not only Libya, but countries such as North Korea, Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, secretly were amassing the technology, know-how and raw materials to build nuclear arms. It was shocked (shocked!) to discover that the father of Pakistan's atomic program, AQ Khan, had been running an international Nukes-'R-Us for years, feeding the ambitions of who knows how many clients to get "the Bomb."

Worse yet, ElBaradei, an Egyptian national who scarcely has concealed his sympathies for Arab and Muslim states and his hostility toward American policy, routinely has acted in a way better calculated to thwart U.S. counterproliferation efforts than to prevent the spread of nuclear weaponry.

For example, ElBaradei has gone to great lengths to prevent the Bush administration from bringing Iran's illegal nuclear-weapons program before the U.N. Security Council, a step mandated in the case of violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also has slanted IAEA reports on Iran to make sure that the conclusions do not support a Security Council referral, often by inserting unjustified findings that ob-scure or downplay the actual evidence.

Incredibly, such behavior continued even after Iran issued a declaration last October to the IAEA that revealed an array of nuclear-weapons-related activities. These included: uranium enrichment, an advanced centrifuge initiative (involving, among other things, the introduction of uranium hexafloride into these devices), plutonium separation, laser enrichment, a heavy-water plant and efforts to perfect a nuclear-fuel cycle. Any one of these admissions would be a good indication of a nuclear-weapons research and development program. Together, they amount to a compelling case of a state determined to make significant numbers of nuclear bombs. Yet ElBaradei concluded that there was no clear evidence of weapons intent in Tehran.

President Bush has been under intense pressure from the State Department and allied governments to do what Sen. Kerry apparently would do - rely on the U.N. bureaucracy to safeguard us from nuclear-armed mullahs in Iran and lunatic despots in places such as Baghdad, Tripoli and Pyongyang. Fortunately, Bush has acted instead on his conviction that peace through American strength is a far better guarantee of our security than clueless - or worse, malfeasant - international organizations and officials.

In so doing, President Bush has offered the public a choice between effective, proactive stewardship in the war on terror and potentially very dangerous paralysis in that conflict, justified by the predictable lack of multilateral consensus. This is a choice we cannot afford to get wrong.

Frank Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. Contact Gaffney at Info@centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

OPs4 God BLess America!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; constitution; frankgaffneyjr; iaea; kerry; nationalsecurity; un
A great question for everyone to answer! Ops4 God BLess America!
1 posted on 02/16/2004 12:39:22 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Islamists/terrorists and America-haters (like the French) worldwide are rooting like hell for Kerry to win.
2 posted on 02/16/2004 12:42:29 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
The poster boy for enemies of the U.S., Hanoi John!
Ops4 God Bless America!
3 posted on 02/16/2004 12:47:01 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Another way to phrase it is this: Who does the Muslim world want as the American President?

Don't vote for that person.

There is press from the Middle East online, in English, and from what I've read the Arab press supports Kerry.

4 posted on 02/16/2004 12:47:59 PM PST by Gefreiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
"America will never ask for a permission slip...... from the UN."
5 posted on 02/16/2004 12:49:10 PM PST by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Integrityrocks
Only if Kerry loses. Other wise he has made it clear that the U.N. is his pick. We need George W. Bush, 4 more years.

Ops4 God Bless America!
6 posted on 02/16/2004 12:50:40 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
I do not trust the U.N. in having the knowlege of the proper use of toilet paper. Why should I trust the U.N. for U.S. National Security. My answer is H*ll No!!!!
7 posted on 02/16/2004 12:54:14 PM PST by Defender2 (Defending Our Bill of Rights, Our Constitution, Our Country and Our Freedom!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
NO!
8 posted on 02/16/2004 1:01:02 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
This is a pathetic scare tactic to try and force the base back toward the President. Sorry charlie, reverse your policy on illegals or many will not be there in November.
9 posted on 02/16/2004 1:03:12 PM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
NO WAY
10 posted on 02/16/2004 1:07:56 PM PST by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
The policy on illegals that president Bush has come up with is better than total amnesty which the democrats want.

If you want UN power over your soveriegnty, and completely open borders, then you can vote for the dems or any other losers.

George W Bush 2004!!!!!!!!!
Ops4 God BLess America!
11 posted on 02/16/2004 1:09:15 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
So you want higher taxes, an amensty plan that is going to be ten times worst than W, and let the UN run our national security? A Kerry admin would be bad for this nation.
12 posted on 02/16/2004 1:11:46 PM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Yep, and any other scenario, is playing in the hands of the demorats.

Ops4 God BLess America!
13 posted on 02/16/2004 1:16:16 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
My point was that I felt the column was a little silly. I know that there is a lot of important issues coming up in the next election but this reads like the democrat's dog food granny kind of stuff. The country has managed not to hand military control over to the UN thus far and I can't take threats like that seriously. However the number of people the President has lost due to immigration,CFR, drug programs, that is very serious.
14 posted on 02/16/2004 1:18:22 PM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
Not quite, you first made it a border issue, now more issues? You have to be a democrat. The issue is clear, the U.N. has been after our national security for years, trying to take over our land and guns.

This is fact read about Bio_Zones and the ban on personal weapons the U.N. has proposed. They are in the back end of the entire Demorat platform.
Ops4 God BLess America!
15 posted on 02/16/2004 1:21:04 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
No I'm not trying to make it any other issues. The illegal issue is just the number one issue that is causing the split. It's quicker to refer to it by itself rather than the "list" of grievences. Yes your right I must be a democarat. I point out serious issues that I think the republicans must adress soon in order to restore the base and your snappy intellect convicts me, I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddlin kids!
16 posted on 02/16/2004 1:27:28 PM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937913/posts
17 posted on 02/16/2004 1:29:53 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
I dislike the President's plan for illegals, too. But remember, Kerry's plan is to make them CITIZENS!
18 posted on 02/16/2004 1:30:25 PM PST by Little Ray (Why settle for a Lesser Evil? Vote Cthuhlu for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Should Voters Trust the U.N. to Protect America's Security?

Sure, it worked so well for the Iraqi people under Saddam.

19 posted on 02/16/2004 1:35:39 PM PST by asformeandformyhouse (Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
I agree. Bush is going to have to regain my vote with his position on issues, not just scare me with his opposition. No matter how badly the election goes we'll still have the House to hold the liberals in check.
20 posted on 02/16/2004 1:36:22 PM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: asformeandformyhouse
Notice how its working for the people in Rwanda and the children of Romania.
Ops4 God BLess America!
21 posted on 02/16/2004 1:37:16 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Dream on if Bush loses they will lose all controls, then you can wear UN blue ties as the military will have U.N. Blue for every branch.The we will answer to the U.N. where the Muslims have more to say then you will.

GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENT 2004
Ops4 God BLess America!
22 posted on 02/16/2004 1:39:58 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
I have no intention of serving the UN no matter who is in office. A president under the Constitution doesn't have that kind of power, unless of course the sheep allow it.
23 posted on 02/16/2004 1:50:34 PM PST by steve50 ("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Should Voters Trust the U.N. to Protect America's Security?

Certainly not! I believe that the President has lost his way in Iraq. That he has had extraordinarily bad advice on what to do, after the successful conquest of the Socialist dictatorship. But nothing in that assessment casts any doubt on what is the function of American foreign policy. It is, as it has always been, to protect the interests of the Americans. That is not remotely debatable.

From the beginning; from the Declaration and Constitution, on down to the present; there is nothing that is so distinctly and essentially American, as the concept of responsibility--the concept that we are responsible for our own lives, for the preservation of our values, both spiritual and material, and for the future of our families, down through the generations.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

24 posted on 02/16/2004 1:50:41 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I wish I could say differently for our President's plan but I can not. Not if I wish to be honest.
25 posted on 02/16/2004 2:08:58 PM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
You say "then we will answer to the UN" and you want to be taken seriously? I understand that rats nest and there greedy desires for America, but as for answering to them that my friend is not up for debate.
26 posted on 02/16/2004 2:14:10 PM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
Just read my tagline!
27 posted on 02/16/2004 2:21:20 PM PST by maxwellp (Throw the U.N. in the garbage where it belongs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellp
Lets get the garbage truck ready.
Ops4 God Bless America!
28 posted on 02/16/2004 4:01:09 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OPS4

29 posted on 02/16/2004 4:06:30 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
We Support the STars and Stripes.
Ops4 God BLess America!
30 posted on 02/16/2004 5:13:21 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
LOL I'm sure the UN will take just as good care of us as they do Israel. We're the only nation standing in the way of total Arab takeover of Israel..and you can bet it will be UN sanctioned.
31 posted on 02/16/2004 7:49:28 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING (SHUT THE DOOR IN 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
You sound like you don't have a lot of faith in the IDF. That is a mistake that many have made in the past.
32 posted on 02/17/2004 5:22:52 AM PST by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson