You Can't Reform a Deadly Disease (The UN)

A thinking person who discovers a tumor attacking a vital organ will quickly find a surgeon to cut it out. Only someone bereft of his senses will continue to feed the growth and assume that it will not hurt him. Likewise, a thinking person will not try to "reform" an institutional entity that has no worth. He will shut it down. Any careful reading of the Charter of the United Nations should lead one to the conclusion that the world body is to our nation what a cancerous tumor is to a human being. Reforming the UN will not accomplish anything of value.

From its outset, the UN was built on a series of untruths. The very first lie that was told held that acceptance of membership in the United Nations could properly be accomplished via the treaty power possessed by the president and the Senate. But a treaty has always been a solemn agreement between two or more sovereign states, and the UN has never been a sovereign state. Hence, the decision to become a member of the UN should not be considered a treaty. The agreement to join the UN was called a treaty because of the widely promoted yet totally false assertion that treaty law supersedes the Constitution and therefore, under the treaty establishing U.S. membership in the world body, the Constitution's sole grant of war-making power to Congress could be circumvented by UN mandates. But treaty law does not supersede the Constitution according to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. Summing up his attitude on this extremely important point, Jefferson stated that if treaty-making power is "boundless … then we have no Constitution."

More deceit appears at the very beginning of the UN Charter where the word "peace" or "peaceful" appears six times in the four short paragraphs of Article 1. Hence the oft-repeated claim that the UN is mankind's "peace organization." But Article 2 clearly authorizes "the application of enforcement measures" should the world body decide to compel adherence to its will. The "enforcement measures" pointed to within the charter call for "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary" to assure "international peace and security." The UN is no "peace organization."

Article 2 of the charter further claims that the UN "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The use of the word "sovereign" creates the false impression that nations joining the UN remain independent. But the charter's Article 25 later stipulates that member nations "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council." Nations joining the UN, therefore, are required to accept dictates from the Security Council, an obvious diminishing of their own sovereignty. No American who has sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution should ever have agreed to such a requirement.

In Articles 52 through 54, the charter grants member states permission to establish "regional arrangements" in order to counter possible aggression. NATO and SEATO were created in this way, both sold to Americans as bulwarks against Communism. So that the UN could retain control of those arrangements, the charter stipulated that every action undertaken by any "regional arrangement" must be "consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations" and that the Security Council must "be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements." President Truman cited NATO as his authority to send troops to Korea and successor presidents pointed to SEATO for their authorization to commit forces to Vietnam. While in those conflicts, the U.S. told the UN — and our enemies who were part of the UN — its plans to conduct the war.

Our nation's foundational documents assert the "self-evident" truth that rights are granted by a Creator and that "Congress shall make no law" limiting or abolishing them. In stark contrast, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that rights are granted by a "constitution or by law," and that they "shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law." That is, unlike our own Declaration of Independence or Constitution, UN instruments are based on the false premise that government is the source of our rights and may therefore determine what those rights are. The contrast between the two systems could hardly be greater.

Anyone who carefully studies the reality of the United Nations should begin to understand that he or she has either been led astray by deliberate traitors or has been misled by unthinking dreamers and foolish idealists. Can any organization built on a foundation full of lies and falsehoods be reformed? The answer is NO. Yet, we note a steady stream of proposals calling for restructuring, rebuilding, and reforming the cancerous institution eating away at our nation's independence.

But just as fostering the growth of a cancer will not eliminate its threat, no amount of reform can fix the United Nations and remove its threat. The only course for Americans who love this country is to urge Congress to pass H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. Not calling for "reform," this legislation would bring about total withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

Don't worry, the UN is going to "reform"

UN Rhetoric Heats Up Over Reform

The U.N. General Assembly has scheduled a debate this week on a proposal to add new members to the Security Council. The question of Security Council enlargement has revealed deep divisions among member states, and threatens to wreck plans for broader U.N. reform.

A group of former foreign ministers from Europe, Asia and North America has issued an open letter urging reform of the United Nations in four key areas.

Among them are restructuring the discredited U.N. human rights commission, establishing a peace-building commission, requiring universal acceptance of the principle that all states must protect their citizens, and creating a permanent caucus of democratic nations to break the stranglehold of regional groupings that have in the past blocked proposals on human rights and democracy.

The authors, including former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, say reform is necessary to allay growing concerns that the United Nations is no longer able to successfully address global challenges.

But the letter, published in the Wall Street Journal newspaper, makes no mention of the looming issue that is threatening to further divide the membership and derail all reform efforts.

The issue is how to update the most powerful U.N. body, the Security Council.

In the run up to the General Assembly debate, normally staid U.N. diplomatic language has become unusually heated.

Four countries, India, Germany, Brazil, and Japan, the so-called G-4, have submitted a plan that calls for increasing the number of council seats from 15 to 25. Under the G-4 plan, six of the new seats would be permanent, including two for Africa.

Pakistan, Italy and Mexico are leading a group pushing a plan that would add only non-permanent seats.

They oppose holding a debate on the G-4 proposal, saying the likely venting of heated rhetoric could destroy any chance for approval of a broader reform package when world leaders gather at U.N. headquarters in September.

Asked his opinion of the G-4 move to put their proposal to a vote, Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram was uncharacteristically blunt.

"It is going to be damaging to the reform process, it is going to be damaging to the United Nations, and its going to be damaging to international relations in the regions concerned," he said. "But that is what is being forced upon us by the G-4. It's a confrontation that nobody asked for, it's the selfish interests of a few countries which is going to destroy this house."

But Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of G-4 member Japan flatly rejected his Pakistani colleague's assessment.

"That's their judgment," he reacted. "Everyone is entitled to have opinions. We will have a good debate."

Ambassador Oshima said the G-4 wants a prompt vote on their expansion proposal, possibly as early as next week.

"As soon as practically possible," he said. "It depends on what goes in the debate, and so its hard to tell."

Adding to the confusion, a third proposal has been circulated by the 53-member African group. The plan, approved at last week's African Union summit in Libya, calls for greater African representation than the other two proposals.

Algeria's U.N. ambassador, Abdallah Baali, just returned from the African summit, says he remains hopeful that the heated rhetoric will give way to a compromise on Council enlargement that will allow world leaders to act on a broad reform agenda when they gather in New York in September.

"Our fear from the beginning was because of this focus on Security Council reform and complexity of Security Council reform, we could put in jeopardy the whole reform process," said Mr. Baali. "We are not there, I hope we would still be able to make the reform succeed. As to Security Council reform, there is a question mark obviously, but we have a few weeks to go and we can still achieve something between now and September."

The three competing proposals have clouded prospects for Security Council reform. As the battle lines are drawn, many countries, such as permanent Council members China and the United States, are watching from the sidelines.

U.S. officials earlier said they favor adding "two or so" new permanent members, and acting U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson made clear that Washington's priorities are on the broader issue of overall U.N. reform.

"We have high priorities for this process, namely the Human Rights Council, management reform and the Peacebuilding Commission and that Security Council reform should not crowd out these other priorities," explained Ms. Patterson. "We have discussed this issue of course with members of the G-4 and with other delegations... We'll just see what develops over the next few weeks."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said earlier this year he wants the issue of Security Council expansion settled before the September summit.

Changing the makeup of the Council would require approval of two-thirds of the 191 U.N. member states, or 128 countries.

G-4 diplomats say they believe they will be able to get the necessary votes, but sponsors of the other proposals are equally confident they have the support to block it.

The debate is set to begin Monday, and is expected to continue for about three days.

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.