The UN's replacement: The Alliance of Liberty

Brain Terminal ^ | 2/10/2003 | Evan Coyne Maloney

[libber-tarian]

The Alliance of Liberty

Meet the UN's replacement

Would the McDonald's Corporation make an appropriate sponsor for a seminar on obesity?

Should Bacardi be providing refreshments at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings?

If Bill Clinton offered you marital advice, would you take it?

Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer or a former president, I assume your answer to each of those questions is no. I also assume you wouldn't let Iraq run a conference on disarmament, or let Libya lead a human rights commission.

You might not. But the United Nations would.

Yes, the United Nations--whose purported purpose is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"--decided that Iraq would make an appropriate leader for its U.N. Disarmament Conference, and that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights should be entrusted to Libya.

The U.N. pays lip service to human rights and freedom, but then, as if in some Orwellian nightmare, it lets countries like Libya and Iraq drive the discussions where these concepts are debated and defined. Is it any wonder, then, that the U.N.--for all of its inconsequential finger-waving and resolution-passing--has been unable to achieve any of the aims set out in its own charter?

Flawed By Design

The real problem isn't that the U.N. is weak and morally blind, the real problem is that it is built to be this way. As a result, the U.N. is structurally incapable of fulfilling its own goals:

• The United Nations makes no distinction between democracies and dictatorships. Libya, Syria and Iraq have the same voice and the same vote as countries like Canada, Iceland and Japan. Because much of the world is not free, any serious effort to liberate the oppressed would be stifled by the sizable bloc of nations that freedom threatens.
• The United Nations can't enforce its own resolutions. It has neither the brawn nor the backbone to do so. Without a fighting force, resolutions can't be enforced unless members commit their own troops. But, because other nations rarely put their resources where their rhetoric is, violators correctly calculate that enforcement will never come. Emboldened by years of U.N. inaction, the Saddam Husseins of the world now understand that continual stonewalling is the formula for escaping punishment.
• Powder-blue helmets. Like Rodney Dangerfield, U.N. peacekeepers get no respect. This may have something to do with the fact that they wear powder-blue helmets in the middle of war zones. Or maybe it's because the U.N.--hamstrung by an institutional fear of force--discourages its peacekeepers from taking action, even in self-defense. Whatever the reason, peacekeepers are able to maintain tenuous peace only when combatants are willing to grant it. How effective are they? Not very: in a few brutal days during the summer of 1995, as U.N. peacekeepers stood by, some 8,000 people were massacred in Srebrenica, Yugoslavia, a city designated a "safe haven" by the United Nations.

Because these flaws are inherent in the design and culture of the U.N., they won't go away without rebuilding the U.N. from the ground up. That's not going to happen, so we must recognize the U.N. for what it is: a terminal patient, an abject failure, a latter-day League of Nations. And, like its precursor, its time--if it ever came--has come and gone. It's time for a replacement.

The Alliance of Liberty

What we need instead is an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to ensure the eventual freedom of every person on the planet. It would state its mission as follows:

We, the free people of the world, in recognition of the fact that freedom is a gift given to us through the selfless sacrifice of our ancestors, and in agreement on the belief that it is our moral obligation to share this gift with those who were not fortunate enough to be born into it, declare ourselves united in an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to secure the freedom of every human everywhere.

The Alliance would have two main objectives: to free the unfree, and to bring about long-term peace. When it must, the Alliance would use force to topple tyrants. But, by defeating tyranny--even when war is required to so do--the Alliance will be working towards an ultimate peace, a goal touted but unattained by the United Nations and the League before it.

What Is Peace?

Paradoxically, conflict is sometimes required to secure peace. In World War II, peace in Europe was achieved through the exercise of military muscle. But let's say the pacifists had been successful at convincing the allies that--to use the words of Jacques Chirac--"war always means failure and therefore everything must be done to avoid war." If Hitler gobbled up Europe and satiated his appetite for expansion, the fighting in Europe would be over. Pacifists would declare success, because by allowing Hitler to roll over Europe, war was avoided. In the minds of those who believe that peace is the absence of war, a war-free Europe living under the thumb of the Nazis would be a Europe living in peace. Talk about doublespeak.

Of course, peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace is the absence of threat. That's why the Cold War--a conflict containing much threat but no direct fighting--is referred to as a war; for forty years, the world lived under a frightening threat, and we rightly recognized that state of threat as a state of war.

Only by eliminating the threats that the world faces today will we achieve meaningful, lasting peace. Given that such threats invariably come from repressive regimes--how often do you find free countries at war with each other?--bringing freedom to those without it will eliminate these threats, and will lessen the likelihood of new ones emerging in the future. In other words, we may need to fight wars now if we want peace in the future. Or, we can let threats fester, and leave future generations even less secure than we are today. But, remember: threats do not go away simply because one side wishes to avoid conflict. There is no such thing as a unilateral peace.

The Future of the U.N.

In the coming weeks and months, we will hear much debate about the future of the United Nations. Such talk is futile. The United Nations is a world body in rigor mortis. It is not, as it set out to be, a body for promoting progress. Instead, the U.N. promotes stasis. And it has not, as it set out to do, brought about larger freedom. Instead, the U.N. winks at dictatorships by granting them the same consideration as democracies. The U.N. may truly desire world peace, it just doesn't know how to get there.

History gave the gift of freedom to many, but it overlooked many more. Is it right that we enjoy this gift without sharing it? What we now call a coalition of the willing should band together in a permanent alliance to replace groups that--like the U.N. and NATO--find themselves struggling for relevance. Those free nations that agree to fulfill the mission of the Alliance are welcome to help the United States carry the light of liberty to the darkest parts of the globe. And to those other free countries, the stingy ones that seem to think freedom is finite and must be hoarded, I ask: is the only freedom worth fighting for your own?

Original article on Brain Terminal, at:

    http://brain-terminal.com/articles/world/alliance-of-liberty.html

[libber-tarian]

Now the WEASELS are trying to kill NATO also!

[xzins]

Freedom is not given to us by the sacrifice of our ancestors.

We are "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS." Liberty (freedom) is one of those rights given me by the CREATOR.

[talleyman]

Bump

[Centurion2000]

American Commonwealth of Nations sounds pretty kewl.

[Search4Truth]

I like it. Imagine what could be accomplished? Would we call it the "ACL"?

[Search4Truth]

Sorry, ACN.

[thinktwice]

The UN is a marxist/dictator protection society -- the time has come to replace it with those nations willing to form an Alliance in Freedom, with all such nations having a Bill of Rights substantially matching that of the United States of America.

[AFCdt]

Not every democracy is strictly monotheistic, and many believe in things which might be considered mutually exclusive.

I honestly don't care what religion you are, as long as you as a person, and consequently a collection of people as a nation, believe in the dignity of human life and freedom.

It is moral ambivalence which has ruined the UN, yet creating a "Judeo-Christian only club" is not the answer. Democracy and liberty should be but the only prerequisites.

[smith288]

Saddam would argue, of course, that he is elected, therefore a free country. *sigh*

France would demand their entry into the Alliance.

France of course would have to be admitted into the union based on its history of fighting for freedom. Which, im afraid to report, is not good.

[xzins]

"Ancestor worship" is also religious.

As soon as you appeal to ancestors, some anti-gun professor will pull historical events out of context and tell people that "your ancestors REALLY represented something other than what you think."

When I appeal to the CREATOR for my rights, my opinion of Him is just as valid as anyone else's. (And there's no higher appeal.)

[smith288]

Ancestor worship? Is the Constitution a "living document" or not? If it isnt, then is that Ancestor worship?

[xzins]

I don't understand your point. Could you rephrase? (seriously)

[smith288]

Your post indicates that we shouldnt "worship" our ancestors and went on to say anti-gun nuts distorting what our founding fathers said to make ends.

If we didnt rely on our ancestors acomplishment (like arming its citizens), then what are we to use as a guideline to tell anyone else how to run a functional system of International Alliance or how to accept them as part of it based on their history combined with their current attitude?

Or am i just not even in the same ballpark as you?

[KarlInOhio]

Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer

Er, ah, did somebody call?

[xzins]

I don't mind using history to determine what the founders meant. If that's all you're saying, then we don't disagree on this.

[Orangedog]

We've all heard the New World Order, tin-foil type rantings from various groups and assorted individuals. Many of those arguments are pretty far-fetched, to say the least...especially when you take a look at the list of possible suspects that could be the "NWO" that is preparing to establish itself. Let's take a look at them, in no particular order:

The European Union (EU)- Historically, these neighboring nations have never been able to play nicely with each other. And since history has a nasty habit of repeating itself, they are not likely to be able to glue themselves together into anything that could possibly turn into the One-World boogyman, unified currency or not.

Warsaw Pact: As Dr McCoy from Star Trek would say "It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim!" This club turned to dust when the Soviet Union collapsed. Cross them off the list, too.

The United Nations: This, until the past few months, was the most likely candidate. Lots of countries are part of it and most of them lean socialist/marxist. The problem with the UN possibly becoming a NWO is that it, as a whole is, well...incompetent. Face it, this organization if too lethargic, self-important and unable to elect anyone even remotely threatening as it's leader. Kofi Annan...please! The average Brownie-Scout troup has stronger leadership. And aside from just being run by half-wits, it's structure doesn't lend itself to swift (or competent) decision making. The debacle over Iraq will be it's downfall.

Doesn't leave many other candidates, does it? There very well could be a New World Order someday, but the UN isn't going to be it. My speculation is that if one is to come (a BIG if), it will be built from the gutted remains of the UN. Nature abhors a vaccuum, and when the UN collapses, there will be a big space to fill. Let's be careful what we fill it with.

[smith288]

Well then OK! :D

[RonF]

Our right to freedom is granted by God. Our actual attainment and retention of it is owed to the actions of our ancestors.

[libber-tarian]

Freedom is not given to us by the sacrifice of our ancestors.

We are "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS." Liberty (freedom) is one of those rights given me by the CREATOR.

Huh? Freedom was NOT given to us by our ancestors? Who the hell fought and died to secure our freedom for us? Although humans may be "endowed" with certain rights by our creator, our creator is rather uneven in allowing humans to take advantage of that endowment.

or are you arguing that the creator favors humans living in America to those living in, say, North Korea or Cuba?

The only difference between NK/Cuba and USA is that in the case of the latter, we were rather lucky to be born in a place where our ancestors fought and died to secure that freedom. People in NK/Cuba weren't so lucky with the location of their birth...

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The goals the u.n. are trying to achieve are not only unrealistic but unattainable.This is the most foolish bunch of people i've ever seen.They think we are all going to wind up sitting in flowered fields without a care in the world.NUTCASES,THE LOT OF EM!