We don't need the UN

The United Nations is a fine idea. Its members are more of a problem. A membership that can elect Libya to be in charge of human rights and seriously contemplate choosing Iraq to supervise disarmament is overstepping the frontiers of credibility. Delving further into the past yields other absurdities, prime among them the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism.

It is hardly surprising that serious countries regularly fall out of love with the United Nations, and none more so than the United States, on whose initiative - with the UK - the UN was founded and on whose support it ultimately depends.

The truth is that the United Nations is an organisation of convenience. Countries use it when they think that will serve their interests or convenience and avoid it when they see no likely gain. As we stand within hours of a war that will almost certainly take place without a second Security Council resolution, it is being said that war without such endorsement would be unprecedented, illegal and immoral.

That is pretty good bunkum. You don't even need all the fingers of one hand to tot up the wars which have been authorised by the UN: Korea by the General Assembly and the 1991 Gulf War by the Security Council. The number of wars or military interventions conducted in good, moral and honourable causes which have not been authorised by the UN are legion. The most recent is the war against Serbia to remove a dictator and prevent further massacres in Kosovo. But there are many other examples, including the intervention by African regional organisations in civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Even in the 1991 Gulf War the case for UN endorsement was based more on political convenience than moral or legal necessity. All the legal justification needed to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was to be found in the right of selfdefence articulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Indeed, Margaret Thatcher argued strongly at the time that no further UN process was needed, not least because it would constrain the scope of action against Saddam.

But the Americans were keen to assemble the widest possible military coalition and saw the UN route as the best means to do so. Both were right. The terms of the UN resolution did help put together a very broad coalition. But the same terms prevented the Allies from contemplating hot pursuit of Saddam's crumbling forces deep into Iraq and even to Baghdad - which would have procured his downfall and saved us a lot of subsequent trouble.

Sophistry is characteristic of UN members. France bases its threat to veto any Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq on grounds of principle and upholding the UN. But France has never felt the need for UN endorsement of its various military forays into Francophone Africa. It did not seek UN authority to blow up the Rainbow Warrior.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that its sudden predilection for the UN has other motives, like thumbing its nose at American power or possibly its long-standing links with Saddam. Whatever the truth of that, it is difficult to understand the logic of France's position in respect to its own interests.

The UN Security Council is the one remaining stage on which France - and Britain for that matter - can still play the role of a great power. If a French veto is exercised but ignored and circumvented, the authority of the Security Council will be diminished.

Equally, if as seems likely, attempts to pass a second (or actually 18th) resolution are abandoned because of the threat of a French veto and the Security Council is in consequence bypassed, the result will be the same. France's veto will be less credible in future and France's ability to strut the Security Council stage will be diminished. Either way, France is the loser.

A similar dilemma faces the holier-than-thou opponents of military action in the Labour Party. They were happy enough with humanitarian intervention in Kosovo without UN Security Council endorsement, but have inexplicably developed cold feet in the case of Iraq. If upholding the United Nations was really their motive one would expect to see them championing enforcement of its resolutions on Iraq.

One inevitable result of the present machinations will be growing disenchantment with the UN on the part of the US. President George W Bush took the UN route over Iraq last September - probably against his own instincts - and it has landed him in a quagmire of indecision and evasiveness.

The vaunted unity of the Security Council around Resolution 1441 rapidly dissolved when confronted with the need for action. American presidents will understandably be more inclined to bypass the UN on major international crises in future, with the result that its relevance will decline.

But that is a far cry from predicting the UN's demise. I don't believe it will go the way of the League of Nations. It has never been the incipient world government which its more idealistic supporters proclaim. Rather it is the world's parliament: a useful forum for debate, a graveyard for insoluble disputes, a valuable mechanism for assembling peacekeeping forces, a humanitarian agency. But any pretension to unique moral authority has long ago been tarnished.

That is not the fault of the institution but of its members. The UN is only a mirror held up to our untidy world and if we do not like what we see, there is no point in cursing the mirror.

We could rebuild the UN's authority, but not by failing to implement its resolutions and ignoring obvious evils. That way it will remain a cockpit in the Tower of Babel, to use the vivid phrase in Winston Churchill's Fulton speech.

We need to recognise that the world has moved on since 1945 when the UN Charter was drafted and that the main threats to international peace and security are not so much from states going to war over territory as from rogue states determined to acquire WMD, from terrorist organisations which practise terror worldwide, from genocidal dictatorships, from crumbling states.

Those dangers will be dealt with one way or another: through the UN if it can summon the willpower to enforce its decisions; outside the UN if it cannot.

The experience of the past few months is not encouraging for those who believe the UN is the proper forum, but we should not give up hope.

The UN is Communist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763809/posts

Flower Child Fascism
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ac3d9b55fec.htm

The UN Plan For Your Mental Health
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/MentalHealth2-99.html

The UN's Global Malfeasance
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/deweese/20030219.htm

Kofi Anan, Bigot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801874/posts

UNICEF
United Nations International Children's Fund
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/index.html

List of Communist Organizations Operating in US.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828445/posts

Let's Quit the UN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837196/posts

UNICEF and Halloween--Vatican Halts Payment
http://www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn25.htm

UN charter deserves the dustbin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710421/posts

Ushering One-World Religion, CBN News
http://www.cbn.org/cbnnews%2Fnews%2F021023a%2Easp

Child Sex Book Given out at UN Summit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/681145/posts

What's UNESCO Good For?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/754948/posts

Who Created the United Nations? Communists!
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a00f5fb38b0.htm

New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743512/posts

United Nations-Sustainable Development
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm

A U.S. Senator Rebukes the U.N. - WHY?
http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jun00/helms.htm

Erasing Our Boarders
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671826/posts

"Every child is our child."
-- Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).

"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisolm, when director of UN World Health Organisation

1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states: "Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

• "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Bush Says YES to UNESCO
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/19/153742.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791354,00.html

United Nations: Don't Smack Your Child
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2297821.stm
Your UNICEF dollars at work
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27627
The New World Religion
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-23-2002/vo18no19_religion.htm
U.N. land grab in the works
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29260

http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0036.html

Speak Up for Sovereignty and Patriotism!http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/jan97/psrjan97.html

FYI Read these links regarding the UN, NATO and Communism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/853574/posts?page=32#32

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/853574/posts?page=33#33

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/853574/posts?page=39#39

Bush Says YES to UNESCO
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/19/153742.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791354,00.html

United Nations: Don't Smack Your Child
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2297821.stm
Your UNICEF dollars at work
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27627
The New World Religion
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-23-2002/vo18no19_religion.htm
U.N. land grab in the works
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29260

http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0036.html

Speak Up for Sovereignty and Patriotism!http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/jan97/psrjan97.html

The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.

Dueling Vetoes

John L. Perry
Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2003

"Veto" is Latin for "I forbid."

Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States each may forbid any United Nations action. Now, countervailing vetoes loom.That is another way of saying the United Nations is at long last well on its way to the ash heap of history.Which is another way of saying all of this is good news, not calamity, for the United States, for the entire Free World and for those peoples struggling under the yokes of dictatorships to become members of the Free World.

Enforce or Ignore?The present veto issue is over whether the U.N. Security Council will adopt yet another resolution - requiring once and for all time Iraq's forthwith compliance with a long string of 17 previous resolutions - demanding full disclosure and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.As it is now shaping up, the United States, in close cooperation with the United Kingdom, is expected to sponsor such a resolution within the 15-member Security Council, whose five permanent members enjoy the power of veto.One of those five, France, with the connivance of non-veto-toting Germany, is poised to sponsor a resolution aimed at preventing just such a compliance resolution. Those two will have the support of recently communist Russia and currently communist China, both of which have veto power.

Greed and AggrandizementThey are that determined, for their own reasons of selfish economic and political enhancement, to keep the regime of Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.A historic collision is about to occur. Consider the implications:

If the Security Council takes up the U.S.-U.K. resolution first, the factotums of France and Germany - with those of Russia and China dog-trotting alongside - are confronted with three options:
(a) Go along with a "yes" vote, which would cause them to have to execute a hairpin reversal of course with all the attendant embarrassing consequences domestically and internationally;
(b) Abstain, which would cost them equivalent humiliation at home and elsewhere, since even the bumfuzzled value a certain degree of constancy in their leadership, or
(c) Veto the U.S.-U.K. resolution, which would place them irreconcilably at odds with America and its allies, who far outnumber them.

On the other hand, if the French and Germans are the first to offer their resolution, which would litter the Iraqi landscape with U.N. "inspections" bureaucracies and dot the sky over Iraq with French and Russian "surveillance" aircraft, here are the options confronting the United States and the United Kingdom:
(a) President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair could approve its adoption, about as likely as either one resigning from office, which is what a complete reversal of their positions would honorably call for;
(b) Abstain, a posture leaving those two as emasculated impotents adrift on the world scene, at the whim of the likes of France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria and on and on, or
(c) Exercise the veto, which would cut the American alliance free of the baleful influence of Old Europe, but also thrust it face to face with the loonies of radical Islam and the always-sinister and rapidly developing People's Republic of China - an inevitable confrontation incalculably more expensive later on.

Those consequences range far beyond the immediate issue of how to treat with Iraq's malevolent tyrant. They will cast the mold for the reconfiguration of economic relationships, political alignments and military deployments of world powers for decades to come.This a most-sobering reality. Either way the cat jumps, it constitutes nothing less than the most fundamental upheaval since the onset of the Cold War in the wake of World War II.Nothing like this has come along since the now-defunct Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin gambled on possible nuclear annihilation to subjugate the United States and all it represents.

The Threat Was Well Known
That came at a time when the United States was victorious in World War II and there was widespread appreciation among the American people of the mortal danger the Soviet Union represented.The greatest peril implicit in this present crisis - which neatly fits the Japanese dual ideogram for danger combined with opportunity - is that millions of Americans still don't get it.Much of that disconnect from reality can be laid at the door of American elitist, leftist mass communications and eight years of unethical leadership and neglect by the Clinton administration that those media so gleefully celebrated - and now so vengefully mourn.

Blind Self-AbsorptionA staggering number of Americans remain, even post-Sept. 11, in a combination state of denial of the horrific danger pressing upon them and smug preoccupation with personal pleasures and distractions.That is many times more unsettling than whether the latest surveys of opinions purport to show that most of the rest of the world's population is not on America's side in this time of peril.The courageous leadership of Bush and Blair, who have not allowed opinion polls to blind their perception of their duty, will go down in history alongside that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Train Wreck AheadSo what happens if, as seems likely, the two headlong opposing resolutions work their way up to a vote in the Security Council after every other U.N. member state has been given face time on world television to do its posturing?Despite strenuous efforts now being made to mush together some sort of face-saving compromise resolution, it seems humanly impossible that, in the end, the two opposing camps can avoid having to split. Each side has gone too far to double back on itself.As Bush has promised, should the Security Council chicken out on its responsibility, the United States will lead a Coalition of the Willing - impressive in number and strength - to liberate the people of Iraq and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

Taking the Time to Ramp UpAny passage of days between now and then will be occasioned not by the grant of more time for U.N. inspectors but by the arrival on station of that fourth U.S. carrier battle group and the ominous thud of the final platoon's boots hitting the ground.At that point, there goes the United Nations. Why is that?The answer lies in the history behind the founding of the United Nations as World War II was coming to a close.That awful conflict was won by the wartime unity of the Big Three - as Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States were known then. The concept was that post-war peace could be maintained only if the Big Three remained in effective unanimity.

Antiquated VetoThe veto was grafted into the U.N. Charter to make that _expression of Big Three unity possible, by ensuring the impotence of the United Nations if any one of the Big Three was willing to precipitate its collapse through exercise of the veto.That made sense only if Big Three unity persisted, which of course it didn't. Even before World War II ended, even before the United Nations came into being, Big Three unity was falling apart.In actuality, the United Nations as an effective instrument of international cooperation and peacekeeping was stillborn.
Disunited From the Get-GoWhat did emerge and has hung on by a thread ever since is not a United Nations, but a hopelessly Disunited Nations - as illustrated by the numerous vetoes cast by the Soviet Union.An effective, relevant United Nations has been flat-line brain-dead these nearly 60 years, and what the world is now witnessing are the terminal twitchings of its prolonged state of artificially suspended animation.The very idea of the United States, or any country, thinking it had to go to such a United Nations with hat in hand and obtain approval to do what has to be done to protect its own people's vital national interests has been a dirty joke all these long years.So now, in the impending Shootout at the East River Glass Corral, two principals on the misnamed Security Council are about to fire veto bullets at each other. The current world economic, political and military realities are such that America and its allies will win that duel.

A Demise to CelebrateThe United States and the United Kingdom will walk away. France and Germany will not perish, although they will be grievously wounded, lingering as cripples for generations.But lying lifeless on New York's East Side, in form as well as in substance, will be what once had the presumption to call itself the United Nations.No need for grieving over that. The Free World will be the better for it.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents.

A Choronological History of the New World Order
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2aa8747413.htm

"STATE OF THE WORLD FORUM" TO ADVANCE "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE" FOR EVERYONE
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3991067719db.htm
Bilderberg group wants vigorous Atlantic alliance / REUTERS IN A RARE INTERVIEW http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b11d27a10c5.htm
Deliberately dumbing us down (Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3846d8ab444a.htm
History of the New World Order in the 20th Century http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a999294ef9.htm
Info on the FED - Rockefeller Shadow Government http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3806a2f37c94.htm
MASTERLINK TO FREE REPUBLIC EDUCATION THREADS (#6) http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a385bf3644986.htm
The United Nations’ Grab for Power http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39cab9547190.htm
Who Is Running America?
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392ef408565b.htm
POPE COULD FACE CHARGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/02021201.html
RADICAL FEMINISTS LAUD INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00030905.html
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SAYS POPE GUILTY OF "WAR" AGAINST WOMEN
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00063005.html
Global Criminal Court Starts March 14, 2003
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030311/80/dv535.html

"The National United Nations-free Zone Committee"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/un_freezone.htm
The truth about the United Nations!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/un.htm
CHRISTIANITY UNDER SIEGE, TOWARD A ONE WORLD RELIGION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/christianity.htm

The New International Criminal Court
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/international.htm

Al Gore - FOR a One World Church and UN Dictatorship
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/dictatorship.htm

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WCC.htm

The slide into dictatorship
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/dictatorship2.htm

United Nations Children's Fund Seeks to Usurp Parental Rights
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/children.htm

The Adams County Patriot's League: Parental Rights in America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/viar.htm
The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm
Government has its eye on your money !
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gov_eye.htm
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/global_governance.htm
The United Nations plans to CONFISCATE your profit and ---.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/united_nations.htm

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.

The Earth Charter7

Towards a culture of sustainability