I don’t think you’re catching on to the problem. What gives the United Nations the right to “grant” or “deny” us anything?
The United Nations supposedly was a dispute resolution organization, but in truth was a Soviet designed mechanism against the West, particularly the United States, that more and more is assuming lawmaking powers and as this ridiculous case illustrates, areas of sovereignty, e.g., all of the mass of ocean outside of a tiny two hundred mile radius.
Are they kidding?
And are we that stupid?
They are looking for “outside” sources of permanent income for their operations. Why? Because this permits them to move forward on every front without the consent of the sovereigns they supposedly serve.
Nowadays, even though we are dumb enough to provide 40 percent of their budget, plus extra assessments here and there for military operations for instance, or international “crisis,” that they sometimes moan about us not supporting or giving our lions share ... YET that money doesn’t come without the consent of Congress.
The U.N. has LONGED for the day to tax the air, the sea, the Internet, anything they can claim as theirs as if they were SOVEREIGN of the world (who elected them I wonder? ... NO ONE!) .. and can do as they please about anything.
This is no trivial matter.
LOST needs to get LOST ... and the sooner the better ... and the U.N. too.
Even if the U.N. stuck to its supposed purpose of a diplomacy forum, diplomacy on the stage has been a bad idea from the start.
Once on the stage such diplomacy becomes inflexible. Nations get backed into corners (rather than the face-saving quiet diplomacy that always existed). What’s worse, is that its so-called dispute resolution mechanisms turns into the world choosing up sides, rather than the two nations involved working it out.
It’s like the stupidity of a married couple who gets in an argument calling or going door to door to every neighbor, every relative, every work associate, and having them take sides in the dispute and then posting the results of that vote on CNN.
What do you have then? All kinds of new enemies all over the place. What should have been a dispute between A & B alone, is now a dispute between A through Z.
D & K, for instance, might have been perfect friends until K found out what side D took in the dispute between A & B. It makes every squabble a possible World War.
This is stupidity and entangling alliances in the extreme.
Worse yet, the U.N. has been dominated by a socialist culture, has a Charter that provides not for ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL. Not one. Further, the so-called voting game in the General Assembly is in fact, meaningless in that only the Security Council can authorize actions, with the absolute veto power in the hands of a few nations, including Russia, China, the U.S., England, and France. Three of those nations are not really all that friendly to our interests.
It’s bill of rights was lifted almost precisely as it stood in the old Soviet Constitution ... arrayed with a variety of socialist rights like the right to housing, or health care, or whatever (rather than freedom to work and earn for those things), and then regardless it has an overthrow of all the rights listed clause that states, something along the line of “any of these rights exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations are null and void.”
Same thing in the old Soviet Constitution, just insert the word Soviet Union instead.
Alger Hiss convicted Soviet Spy engineered this boondoggle (the U.N. Charter), and interestingly enough was at FDR’s side when we handed over to the Soviet Union everything we had fought and died for to stop NAZI Germany and Japan.
Reagan called the U.N. the home of “the greatest concentration of communist spies on the planet.” It is also a place that promotes the interest of terrorists and terrorist states.
Can you give me one good reason why we should permit this Trojan Horse to grant or deny us one single thing?
I can’t. I’d rather we shipped it to Beijing or Moscow where it belongs.
Just my opinion, mind you.
I don’t think you are catching on to the problem. Whether the US signs the treaty or not is irrelevant. It is in effect. Every nation, except for the US and a few landlock nations, have signed it.