Posted on 02/21/2003 8:58:34 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
When Secretary of State Colin Powell recently addressed the U.N. Security Council, denouncing the ongoing Iraq weapons inspections as “all process, not substance,” he was greeted with silence. Yet French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was met with thunderous applause when he spoke in favor of continuing the self-deceiving weapons inspections. How pathetic that obstinate cowardice should not only be tolerated, but also applauded.
Many conservatives have wanted the U.S. to pull out of the U.N. for many years, myself included. However, I believe only now have we reached a point where leaving the U.N. is not just the best thing for American sovereignty, but it may be the only option left to protect our own credibility.
The concept of the United Nations has merit, but in execution, human nature is proving to be its downfall. From inception, the organization has been proliferated by communists, socialists, tyrants, and a long list of others who have no intentions of living up to its espoused ideals. Knowing that, it should be no surprise when we see the U.N. not only fail to live up to the standards of freedom, righteousness and courage of the U.S., but frequently act in opposition to the U.S.
The U.N. charter says the organization is determined “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” Yet they ignore the lessons that should have been learned from those wars (Treaty of Versailles, the results of appeasement, words not backed up by action, etc.).
The U.N. charter says the U.N. is determined “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” Yet they have sat mute in the face of Communism, the slavery in the Sudan, government persecution in China, and multitude of abuses in Asia, Africa and other places.
The U.N. charter says the organization is determined “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” and “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” Yet they are too cowardly to enforce even their own mandates. They wouldn´t even be where they are today with regard to Iraq had not the “illegitimate” and “dumb” President Bush forced them to pay attention to their obligations.
The U.N. General Assembly adopted a Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It´s preamble says “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.” In America, our freedoms are enumerated and protected in our Constitution. Yet these rights are not respected in a large number of the U.N. member nations.
The Declaration of Human Rights also says “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” While some of the “rights” outlined by the U.N. are right out of the socialist wish-list, I´m primarily concerned with basic human rights when I point out how these freedoms are trampled upon in the Middle East, along with many South American, African and Asian countries.
It also says “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” Over 360,000 Union soldiers died in America in the war that ended slavery here 138 years ago. How much blood and sweat has the U.N. invested to end slavery that goes on today in the Sudan and countries like it?
Talk is cheap; actions are what counts. Despite noble declarations, the U.N. has consistently failed to show the will or inclination to live up to its own ideals. If principles aren´t worth fighting for, then they do not run deep enough to deserve to be called a principle. Disposable principles aren´t principles at all; they´re just something to provide a false impression of respectability.
It´s entirely possible that the hypocrisy of the U.N., the literal saying one thing and doing another, is not merely a failure of courage, but an inherent design flaw. Paul Scates´ recent Toogood Report on this subject, and a column by Steve Farrell that Paul references, have some interesting things to say on this subject (none of which I dispute, by the way).
The U.N. is not without lessons from which it should have learned. It could look back at the failure of the League of Nations, which made exactly the same mistakes the United Nations is now making. Appeasement and lack of decisive action do nothing but encourage evil men. There is also the example of how President Ronald Reagan dealt with the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Unlike numerous presidents who preceded him and attempted to placate the Soviets, he had the guts to call them what they were and challenge them head-on. President Reagan realized that people of character and courage do not beg evil men to play nice—they condemn and confront the evil.
With a few notable exceptions, the majority of U.N. members are willing to prostitute themselves on the altar of “peace at any price.” Meanwhile, the remaining members who do not belong to the tiny group of the honorable, or the snotty club of peace-whores, are only interested in feathering their own nests or getting enough face-time in the international body to appear “reasonable.”
The U.N. reminds me of these dim-witted parents you sometimes hear in the park or the grocery store who carry on a perpetual litany of “Jimmy stop that – Jimmy leave that alone – Don´t touch that Jimmy – Jimmy stop pulling your sister´s hair – Jimmy stop poking holes in the couch with those scissors – Jimmy stop biting the cat´s tail – Stay out of the cookie jar Jimmy – Jimmy stop cussing at your mother – Stop pouring Drano into the VCR Jimmy.” Yet they never do a single thing to enforce compliance with their directives.
Have you ever visited the home of parents like this? If so, you quickly learn that the adults are not in charge of that house, and chaos reigns. Don´t you feel embarrassed for these full-grown, educated adults who are incapable of dealing with their own children? Have you ever wanted to just grab them by the shoulders, shake them and explain it to them: “Hey, just set boundaries, then ENFORCE THEM!”
It´s really no different with a nation, or a group of nations like the U.N. Any time allow your directives or ultimatums to be flaunted without consequence, you encourage disrespect and further defiance. Soon, any statement you make is irrelevant.
The United States is THE world leader in freedom and human rights. We were the first nation in history to recognize “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
The United States also guarantees freedoms that are much more fundamental and run much deeper than any other nation. Even the other western nations where much freedom and democracy has been achieved cannot compare to America. Just go any western European nation and live there for a year as an average citizen, and you´ll soon feel the restrictive bonds to which most of the natives are oblivious.
The United States is currently a part of the U.N. If the United States is to retain credibility and respectability, we must distance ourselves from this group of ineffectual cowards. They are not interested in freedom and justice. They are not interested in doing the right thing. If these were their ultimate aims, there could be some excuse for them even if they were not yet up to the standard of America. But most of them have no desire to attain these goals. Their collective words in the U.N. charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are hypocrisy, and are a mockery of U.S. ideals.
Even if we manage to shove the U.N. forward to enforce it´s own mandates this time, we should still abandon this body. Any organization that requires this much cajoling, pushing and shoving to move it to action is not worth our time or effort. The U.S. does not require U.N. approval to protect ourselves, and we do not need the “help” of these puny, quibbling cowards. Better for us to sever ourselves from the organization and lead by example than to expend our effort trying to push a mule that is intent on inaction.
Until such time as the members of the U.N. are ready to grow up, act responsibly, and conduct themselves with moral courage, the U.S. does not belong in the company of that organization.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bob at webmaster@bhcsa.org.
| Yet they never do a single thing to enforce compliance with their directives.
The idea of a UN is not all bad. There is probably utility in having a place where little Zoomuland can come and crab about what Bongalia is doing, and vice versa. Maybe it avoids a lot of little wars that would otherwise start over trivial things. In the past the Pope has performed a similar function... being a neutral third party where neither side really wants a war but they need an arbitrator so they can both save face. What we don't need is a Pope -- or a UN -- with seven armored divisions with which to make its decisions binding on unwilling participants. If the UN did not exist, somebody would try to start one. We're probably better off keeping the one we've got, in the state that it is in, i.e. with no real ability to enforce anything. Better the devil we know than the one Jacques Chirac has in mind. It is true that such a thing will try to creep toward having more authority than it deserves. All bureaucracies do. There are already proposals on the table for a standing UN army, and methods for the UN to directly raise tax revenues to fund itself. By remaining a member with a veto, we can make sure that these ideas remain proposals. If we leave, we might someday be facing a world government with nukes. What's happening now will probably knock the UN down a peg, and that's a good thing. It was getting a little big for its britches anyway. But leave? That would just hand over the charter for "world government" to a bunch of people who certainly do not have our interests in mind. We would be wise not to underestimate what they might be able to pull off. The phrase, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" comes to mind. |
There would just be two clubs" "The Nuke Club" and "The Peon Club."
You get to belong to "The Nuke Club" if your nation can build a nuke, test it without blowing yourself up, and build another one. "The Nuke Club" would only have two rules: 1) If we can all agree on something, we will cooperate together on it; 2) Otherwise, we'll stay out of each other's way.
"The Peon Club" would consist of everyone else EXCEPT "The Nuke Club" members. This will be necessary to drive the point home that "The Peon Club" has no real power or significance. Members will be able to go on making meaningless speeches and deliberating on meaningless resolutions as much as they want to, though, just like they do at the UN now.
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.
This is not the worst thing that could ever happen. Do we really want a world government that can enforce its directives? I don't think we do.