A United Freedom Alliance

If you haven’t yet realized it, President Trump has no trouble defying the conventions, norms and policies established by the previous forty-four presidents. According to John F. Kelly, the White House Chief of Staff, the president often meets with aides to discuss policy or prepare for a speech. He may ask about the pros and cons of a given approach, its possible impact, or the best way to frame his case. But according to Kelly, there is one thing he almost never does, “He very seldom asks how other presidents did this.”

One such decision was President Trump’s announcement to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to its stated capital, Jerusalem. Other presidents had talked about it, but none had made the move.

In response, the 193-member General Assembly voted 128-9, with 35 abstentions, to express “deep regret” over Trump’s new Jerusalem policy changes and his plans to move the US embassy to their capital.

One of the Trump administration’s stated goals was to reduce American financial contributions to the UN. The U.S. currently contributes $3.3 billion per year, 22 percent of the UN’s annual budget. In response to the U.N. rebuke, our UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced that the United States will cut $285 million from its UN funding for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years.

Haley asserted, “The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked.” President Trump added, “They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot.” But why should the Trump administration stop with a small cut in our contribution? How about creating a new world body that is actually worth funding!

After all, it’s tough doing anything of significance by a committee made up of 193 strange bedfellows. The U.N. is useless as a united force because its diverse members have different values, different governing models, and different national interests. As a result, the U.N. is best at talking, disagreeing, putting off action, and chastising its biggest donor—America.

There are too many members whose very existence requires the suppression of freedom in their own lands as we are seeing in Iran. The U.N. cannot be the answer to the world’s terrorism problem as long as so many members support and honor terrorists.

Withdrawing from the UN would be a mistake. It is still a force for good in collecting and distributing humanitarian aid. When the major powers agree, the UN can help settle disputes among smaller nations. It also remains the only central forum where the world’s countries can gather to debate, negotiate, and exchange views. But these limited missions deserve limited resources and limited expectations. Keep the UN, but why not establish something more.

In spite of terrorism and tyranny, democracy and freedom are still making headway throughout the world. Prior to 1985, less than 40% of the world’s population was served by democratic governments. By 2015, that number was 52.9% and growing. Others like Iran and Biafra would like to join that list. We should be putting our support and foreign aid dollars into supporting democracy and free-enterprise economies.

Trump’s willingness to take courageous stands could call for a new coalition of the willing—an international body committed to ensuring freedom and promoting economic opportunity. In 2005, I proposed creating a new international organization, the United Freedom Alliance (UFA). Membership would be limited to democratic countries committed to the rule of law, free enterprise, and liberty. Member countries would commit to political and economic support. Most of America’s foreign aid could be given to developing UFA members who are taking a stand for freedom and free enterprise. With minimal exceptions, non-democratic countries shouldn’t expect US foreign aid.

As developing countries become more prosperous and democratic, they’re more likely to become new customers who can afford to buy American products and services. Part of Making America Great Again is making other freedom-loving countries prosperous. A great America needs great countries who can buy what we produce and provide the things we would like to buy. I call on President Trump to help create an organization that is committed to making that dream a reality. There is no time like now to begin. The biggest difference between a vision and a hallucination is the number of people who can see it. Can you see what I see?

I totally agree. What countries could make up such an alliance, provided, of course, that US pulls out of UN and kicks UN out of US? My preliminary list would look as follows: US, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Monte Negro, Slovakia, Austria (as of today). Who would everybody add to this list based on your better knowledge of different countries politics? Thanks.

Neo-con Nation Building again. We need to learn from history. What worked or did not work in the past? Look not just at government action, but at action of NGOs such as missionaries, and of for-profit actions.

Bill Gates, son of a Commie lawyer, never had the best OS, never the best word processor or spreadsheet. But Bill Gates invented the best capitalist hi-tech marketing system. That new marketing system moved entire 3rd world countries into the first world.

Currently around the world, the ambitious minority of poor kids are learning technology and business on the internet, not in government schools. This new internet educated minority from poor countries will be the leaders of the future.

The problem with nation building is that the hallucination turned to vision has never resulted in government action that made any sense.

In Iraq, the neo-cons were totally unprepared to do nation building. Once Sadam lost power, they had no clue what to do. They disbanded the Iraq army ... their first mistake. They designed a strong central government when they should have built strong local governments. They did everything wrong.

How can we be sure that the next nation building will be more prepared and competent?

If you haven’t yet realized it, President Trump has no trouble defying the conventions, norms and policies established by the previous forty-four presidents

This is a broad overstatement because I think some presidents, specifically our founding fathers, did make decisions similar to President Trump. He is doing two things distinctly different though:

1) He is making decision like a businessman, not a politician.

2) His decisions are based on what is good for the country not the party. His policies defy the conventional DC political practice of compromise.

In this context most presidents in our lifetime have promised one thing to get elected only to sell out key elements just to get passage, then present the results as an "accomplishment".

Everything President Trump has done so far, has been what he promised he would do. That drives the professional politicians nuts because it sets a new standard of expectation by the voting public.

We do not need the UN or an alternative for it. That is like looking for an alternative to cancer. What disease would you replace it with? Nations do not need power hungry globalist institutions to have friendly relations with one another. They do need their national sovereignty as a roadblock to global tyranny.

I’m not opposed to friendly alliances. I am opposed to entangling alliances,the kind that get us involved in other nations’ wars which don’t involve US national interests. The US,Britain and France didn’t need institutions like the the League of Nations and the UN to win two world wars. But thanks to the UN, Truman,and our State Department we did not win the Korean War and look at the mess we have now as a result. We do not need the UN to get along with other countries.

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.