Don't Defy the United Nations—End It

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | Mar. 18, 2003 | Robert Tracinski

[RJCogburn]

If its handling of Iraq was a test of the United Nations, as President Bush has indicated, then the United Nations has clearly failed. But this should be no surprise, because yet another test of the United Nations—like yet another resolution giving Saddam Hussein "one more chance"—was completely unnecessary.

It is not that the United Nations has failed to show resolve or to live up to its charter. The problem is that the foundation of the United Nations is hopelessly corrupt.

By its very nature, the United Nations is directed by a consensus drawn upon a nonjudgmental mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. The United Nations' Security Council, whose judgment on Iraq was supposed to bind the United States, is composed of America and a few brave allies—pitted against cynical France, resentful Russia, hostile China, indifferent Mexico, and such enlightened powers as Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea. And the Security Council is just a microcosm of the United Nations itself, which contains a few civilized nations, a few big dictatorships, and a teeming rabble of corrupt and oppressive Third World regimes.

The U.N. charter declares that any "peace-loving" nation is eligible for membership. Yet its founding members included the largest dictatorship of the time: the Soviet Union—a nation at war with its own people and in the process of subjugating half of Europe. In the half-century since, the United Nations' membership criteria have not gotten any more selective.

Yet the defenders of the United Nations tell us that cooperation with this unsavory crowd is essential for America's well-being. In 2001, Madeline Albright declared, "The role of the United Nations is … vital, because no other institution combines a comprehensive mandate with near universal representation." Which means: the United Nations is valuable precisely because it fails to exclude the world's worst regimes. Kofi Annan recently offered his pitch for the importance of the United Nations: "Let us all recognize … that the global interest is our national interest." Which means: the interests of Russia, France, and China are identical with America's interests. Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who has spent recent weeks hyperventilating about America going it alone, tells us: "the key to managing this complex, dangerous world … is our ability to stand united and with others." Which means: we are doomed unless we are propped up by the support of Angola and Cameroon.

All of the arguments for why we need a coalition of hostile powers and tin-pot dictatorships make no sense. Instead, they are the reflection of a deeper philosophical premise that the U.N.'s apologists refuse to question. The real basis of the United Nations is global collectivism—the belief that America's judgment and interests must be subordinated to the collective opinion of the "world community." When the Times' Friedman, for example, calls the attack on Iraq a "war of choice" that should not be waged without a vast international consensus, what he means is that the choice of how America defends itself ought to made by France, Russia, Cameroon, Chile—by anyone and everyone except the United States.

Yes, there is a value to cooperating with other nations—but only with free nations who share a commitment to standing up against the threats of terrorism and dictatorship. Any time free nations agree to subordinate themselves to a collective consensus with hostile dictatorships, it is only the free nations that lose—and it is only the dictatorships that gain. Indeed, the dictatorships run the United Nations. Within weeks of September 11, terrorist-sponsor Syria was invited to chair the United Nations' Security Council. Iraq and Iran are scheduled to trade chairmanship of its disarmament committee, while Libya is set to chair its human rights commission.

This is the same pattern Ayn Rand identified decades ago, when she compared the United Nations to "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors include[s] the leading gangsters of the community." Yet the only thing that can give such a commission any pretense at legitimacy is the participation of the city's upstanding citizens. Similarly, the only thing that gives the United Nations any legitimacy is America's cooperation: our might, our money, and our moral sanction.

America should not defy the United Nations on Iraq—we should do much more: we should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, letting that organization complete its collapse into a Third World debating society.

This would accomplish more than ending the latest round of diplomatic obstructionism. It would permanently unshackle U.S. foreign policy from the debilitating consensus of the corrupt collection of regimes who run the United Nations.

[TominPA]

"America should not defy the United Nations on Iraq—we should do much more: we should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, letting that organization complete its collapse into a Third World debating society."

The essense of this entire article is expressed in this one sentence. The truth could not be more evident.

[Uncle Sausage]

AMEN!

Our exit from the UN should include the withdrawal of diplomatic immunity for all UN diplomats, the deportation of all foreign nationals working at the UN and the implosion of the headquarters building as the finale of NYC's fireworks display this Fourth of July.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Don't Defy the United Nations—End It"

Is anyone else struck by the hidden joke here? I mean, what would they do, sanction us? OOOoooooooo.

I think the US should creat a new body that only allows countries with elected governments to vote and the only purpose is to work together to end dictatorships and other non-elected governments.

[Defiant]

Just wrote this on another thread, but it's applicable here--

The myopic support for the UN in some parts of the US is a testament to the sad state of schooling in this country. I think a big part of the attachment to the UN is the allegiance everyone is taught to principles of democracy, platitudes such as "one man, one vote" and "majority rules".

Translated into global principles, this means to some numbskulls that the world should be governed by majority vote of the nations, and that those who don't accept what the other governments decree (as in Kyoto) are simply schoolyard bullies, refusing to submit to the civilized rules of a polite society, one that has debated and decided, and whose will must then be obeyed.

Let's break that thinking down, shall we:

In Libya, say, a young fellow not smart enough to promote himself from Colonel to General takes power from one strongman in a violent coup, and becomes a new strongman. What is a strongman? A nicety for a dictator, a person who is the only and ultimate political force within a polity. All political decisions, from the organization of the economic structures, ownership of property, allocation of government resources, conduct of military affairs, law, rights and issues of whether someone can continue to live, flow from this individual's will and no one else's.

This person, call him Daffy if you wish, is the person who determines what his country's vote within the UN. His will is no more a reflection of his country's will than any other person's, yet it is the one that counts within the UN.

By contrast, in another country, call it Freedistan, the President is elected by vote of the people. He is responsible for directing his country's foreign policy, including within the UN, but is constrained by the fact that he must be subjected periodically to the voters, and he does not pass the nation's laws, allocate its funds, or even determine the size of its military. All of those issues must be approved by a large body of haggling turkeys to whom the President must defer to and consult with if he wants to get anything through.

When that person then sets a policy at the UN, it may or may not reflect the thinking of his nation's will, but it usually does, and if it does not fairly reflect the polity from which it springs, the nation has methods of ensuring a change in regime.

By what muddled form of thinking does the will of one man, a tyrant who tortures those who disagree with him, merit the legitimacy of a "vote" at a body of Nations, a vote equal to the say of a person who has been chosen to represent a nation like Freelandia? I say the entire structure makes no sense, and not only is structured badly, but is a great force for evil, by perpetuating in easily misled minds that the will of such a body is worthy of consideration, and thus interfering with the beneficial efforts of representative and law-abiding societies to protect their interests in the world from the tyrants.

No nation deserves a "substantive" say in any international body unless that nation has passed a grueling set of tests that ensures that the position it takes within that body are the result of a political process designed to fairly reflect the views and beliefs of the people of that nation. Collections of national diplomatic corps which mingle democracies with dictators are fine for exchanging views, or organizing humanitarian efforts, but as a way to try to bind fair and free societies, they are anathema and should be avoided.

Instead, we need to educate the people of what I call "legitimate" governments to the notion that the UN is, for the most part, a collection of thugs and criminals, whose opinions are not relevant to, and certainly not binding upon, free societies. We should then begin the process of forming a "League of Free Peoples" (the LFP) or "Coalition of Legitimate Governments" (the CLG) or some such group, and only the actions of that body would merit any weight.

Its rules would reflect more accurately the weight that individual governments' views should be given (Iceland's vote would be worth less than ours, for example) and its actions would carry the actual imprimatur of international consensus. Initially, it would be composed of the US, Britain, Australia, Japan, the states of New Europe, as well as weasel democracies like France, Germany and Canada. If Russia, Chile and other semi-democratic states pass the tests of "legitimacy" they could be admitted.

[Political Junkie Too]

But... but... then what is Bill Clinton going to do?

-PJ

[kesg]

This is the same pattern Ayn Rand identified decades ago, when she compared the United Nations to "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors include[s] the leading gangsters of the community."

This pretty much sums it up -- along with the point that only the civilized countries can give such an organization any moral authority or standing -- what if we choose to withdraw it?

[Mikey]

Declaration of Independence from the United Nations )

[Gorjus]

"America should not defy the United Nations on Iraq—we should do much more: we should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, letting that organization complete its collapse into a Third World debating society."

You're too kind. My suggestion is that we get ourselves kicked out, by showing them what hypocrites they are. For example, since they love to say that any benefits are 'the common heritage of all mankind' and apportion them by population, let's apportion dues the same way. Pick a value, say $1/head, and that's the dues. When all the other nations pay their share, we'll pay ours.

Or have membership in each of the organizations be 'pay as you go'. Membership in the General Assembly costs $1 million/year. Membership on the Security Council costs $10 million/year. Membership in the 'human rights commission', etc. Each organization could dispose of their money as they see fit, but the members couldn't require anything they can't pay for, and they can only raise money by raising dues.

Working in support of any organization would be considered payment in kind. For example, if the Security Council wants to put a peacekeeping force in somewhere, then participating nations can 'bill' the Security Council for their time at whatever rate they can justify.

We'd still have at least as much influence as we do now, since we'd be likely to participate in each of the various organizations, but we'd no longer be the cash cow patsy they all laugh at as they take advantage of us.

Of course, they couldn't stand to see their hypocrisy and dependence laid bare, so they'd kick us out.

Which would be fine with me.

[I'm ALL Right!]

END IT!!!! Withdraw NOW. They are worthless, and a waste of our time and money.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

Looks excellent. BUMP for later read.

[TBP]

I agree with this. Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.

The only thing this debate at Useless Nuisance headquarters has accomplished is to show again the UN's irrelevance. Now is the time for us to get out of this anti-American organization.

[RJCogburn]

Good comments.

[Mikey]

CCOPS:

Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States

American Policy Center Petition

Declaration of Independence from the United Nations

Petition to the United States Congress

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

The History of the United Nations "is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

We oppose the United Nations:

1. "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent;" Committees of the United Nations have proposed global taxes, including an internet tax on all computer mail. Taxation without Representation.

2. Because it "has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." Committees of the United Nations have proposed the establishment of a permanent standing UN army with the ability to enter any nation. Currently, soldiers of the United States, who have pledged allegiance to their native land are being forced to serve UN military missions, under foreign officers, wearing UN insignia.

3. "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretend offenses."

The United Nations Criminal Court will allow private citizens to be tried for violating UN treaties. No jury will be provided, no bail will be set, no appeal will be permitted. Trials will be held where the UN declares them to be, judges will be chosen at UN discretion, even from nations hostile to the United States.

4. "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments."

"Mankind's problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government."
Direct quote from the United Nation's Report on Human Development of 1994, page 88.

CLEARLY THE UNITED NATIONS STANDS AS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE IDEALS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED STATES AS DESIGNED BY ITS FOUNDING FATHERS.

WE, THEREFORE, the citizens of the United States of America, appeal to the Congress of the United States to recognize that this nation is sovereign, Free and independent, that we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the United Nations. In recognition of this fact, we further call on the Congress to defend our sovereignty and Independence by enacting "The American Sovereignty Restoration Act" (H.R. 1146) which will withdraw the United States from membership in the United Nations and remove it from our sovereign shores.

Go to the American Policy Center and sign this petition! Click on the link post # 8

If you need more information about what the U.N. is up to, read Gran'pa Jack #5 The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!, by Richard Stevens and Aaron Zelman.

[Mikey]

Gran'pa Jack #5
The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!
by Richard Stevens and Aaron Zelman

Maybe you thought we had plenty to do just to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. Yet that crucial battle might seem quite irrelevant after the United Nations abolishes the Bill of Rights altogether. Not possible? Can't believe it?

You need to learn how the United Nations, with U.S. Government support, has already laid the groundwork to abolish nearly every right protected in our Bill of Rights. They call it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration sets the standard of "human rights" for a planned one-world government. It's a terrifying standard. Most of the rights that Americans take for granted are missing from it. While it takes individual rights away, the Universal Declaration empowers power groups and government to control nearly every facet of human life. Shamelessly the U.N. trumpets its Universal Declaration as the blueprint for a future one-world socialist regime.

This fifth Gran'pa Jack booklet combines key ideas from the four previous booklets and adds a frightening and crucial global perspective. Wake up ignorant Americans who blindly trust in Big Government. Inoculate your children and grandchildren against media and school propaganda. Ensure that every anti-U.N. activist you know gets a copy and reads this new booklet.

Publicly challenge politicians and other public figures who support the U.N.

Now is the time. Use Gran'pa Jack #5 to expose the U.N.'s ongoing destruction of your freedom. Gran'pa Jack #5 gives you the facts which the U.N. and the U.S. Government don't want you to know.

Don't aid and abet the death of liberty. Circulate this latest booklet everywhere you can. Volume purchase discounts multiply your power to persuade.

[A Texan]

I agree with everyone's comments about getting out of the UN. Everyone knows it goes against our constitution, we bank role the damn thing, and it is full of hypocrites and dictators, but how do we really get out of it? Is it even possible to get out of the UN with Democrat's worshiping this defunked organization? I would appreciate some serious thoughts on this.