In a League of Its Own

Center For Individual Freedom ^ | October 7, 2004 | George Hawley

[Tailgunner Joe]

In the fall of 2002, President George W. Bush laid down a challenge to the United Nations, stating: "It's time for them to determine whether they'll be the United Nations, or the League of Nations. It's time to determine whether or not they'll be a force for good and peace, or an ineffective debating society."

The charge was unreservedly slanderous, insulting and unfair … to the League of Nations. To call the United Nations an ineffective debating society is to give far more credit than is due. Instead, a better description would note that the organization is an anti-democratic, anti-American and anti-Semitic disaster whose impotence is only matched by its corruption. After all, the League of Nations achieved some genuine successes, at least when measured by U.N. standards.

For example, in 1921, the League settled a dispute between Finland and Norway regarding the Åaland Islands. That same year, it peacefully settled a disagreement between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia. In 1923, it prevented the economic collapse of Austria and Hungary. In 1925, the League stopped a war between Greece and Bulgaria. The League even expelled a member for bad behavior (the Soviet Union in 1940).

Granted, the League ultimately amounted to an unqualified failure. Its legitimacy was totally undermined when the United States declined to join in 1920, and its promises of eternal world peace were shattered when the most destructive war in human history began. But even though the League had to close up shop in humiliation, at least it never embraced failed states or sheltered corruption as the United Nations does today.

If the League had operated more like the United Nations, it would have spent the 1940s blaming the excesses of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on past injustices, calling on Britain to stop bombing and end the "cycle of violence," praising the "progressive" policies of Stalin’s Russia, appointing a German to chair the Human Rights Council, trying to open trilateral talks between China, America and Japan, warning the United States not to violate Vichy France’s right to self-determination, and holding conferences on racism in Manchuria and occupied Poland.

U.N. supporters are quick to point out the world body’s accomplishments. But, in nearly every case, credit for those successes belongs almost entirely to America. The burden for military actions like the Korean War and Gulf War fell upon on the United States, and, in both cases, U.N. involvement proved to be little more than a hindrance.

Since its founding, the United Nations has turned a blind eye to atrocities and genocide all over the world. Cambodia — 1.7 million dead; the Iran-Iraq War — 1 million dead; the Soviet-Afghan War — 1 million dead; China — at least 40 million dead; Rwanda — 800,000 dead. The list goes on and on. Perhaps the United Nations is too busy furiously issuing proclamations against Israel and not paying its parking tickets to deal with important issues.

Sudan is but the latest genocide to occur on the U.N.’s watch. In response, the United Nations has demanded that the Sudanese government cease the killing or the world body will be left with no choice but to … make a similar request again at a later date, and perhaps even reflect on talking about considering taking some kind of action after careful deliberation — provided, of course, that China doesn’t stand to lose any lucrative contracts.

The League of Nations threw in the towel after demonstrating that it was not an effective tool for world peace. The record of the United Nations is even more abysmal. Yet somehow, Secretary General Kofi Annan continues to collect paychecks for his tireless labors of furrowing his brow in a thoughtful and concerned manner, ignoring the corruption that enriches his cronies, and turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, all while castigating the United States for taking "illegal" actions and lecturing the industrialized world about "root causes."

Annan recently remarked, "If the United Nations does not attempt to chart a course for the world's people in the first decades of the new millennium, who will?" While that is certainly an interesting question, it might be, just perhaps, that nations would be better off charting their own course rather than handing over their sovereignty to a group of unelected, incompetent, crooked bureaucrats.

The League of Nations was a comically ham-handed debacle. The organization collapsed in complete failure, disgracing all who were associated with it. But don’t compare it to the United Nations. The United Nations is in a league of its own.

[willNJ]

excellent article, all in all, the League of Nations was actually a success compared to the UN