The UN, Oil-For-Food and the Coming Prince

Commentary on the News Sunday, November 21, 2004 Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

One doesn't have to be a partisan or a globalist or even an anti-globalist to see the UN has abandoned its Charter completely, becoming instead a democratic tyranny of the sort the Founding Fathers predicted for all pure democratic institutions.

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples . . ."

Pure democracy only survives long enough for its participants to realize they can vote themselves right into the treasury vault -- or, in this case, Iraq's treasury vault.

In a republic like the United States, the general population elects representatives. They then govern according to laws passed by elected representatives.

They cannot govern or legislate contrary to the nation's Supreme Law -- the Constitution -- hence the phrase, 'rule of law'.

In a pure democracy, the source of law is derived from the popular feelings of the majority -- which is to say, there is law without rules; any law can be changed, enacted or repealed by simple majority vote.

It takes a super majority of two-thirds of the states and two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to amend the Constitution. A simple majority isn't enough.

In contrast, the United Nations is governed according to the principles of pure democracy. There is no rule of law until the majority seated has voted their feelings on the matter.

The UN has prevented no wars since its Charter was written. It's historical solution to preventing war is to prop up dictatorships instead.

In places where the UN HAS intervened, instead of wars, there was only one-sided slaughter -- said slaughter being perpetrated by the side most acceptable to the UN majority.

The UN's protection of fundamental human rights is also subject to the whim of the majority.

Because of the Islamic majority voting bloc at the UN, Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record is ignored, while America is constantly being criticized for violating human rights within its own borders.

While Islamic terrorists target Israeli civilians with virtual impunity, Israeli retaliation against terrorists is a violation of human rights, according to UN majority vote.

Equal protection under the law does not exist, since the 'rule of law' is whatever the majority says it is on any given day.

The UN's protection of equal human rights between men and women does NOT extend to women living in Islamic republics where women are routinely murdered by their brothers, fathers or husbands in so-called 'honor killings' .

And then there is the Charter's promise to establish conditions under which 'justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained'

Senator Norm Coleman chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which is investigating corruption and theft surrounding the Oil-For-Food scandal.

According to Coleman, "the extent of the corruption is staggering." Coleman said this week's hearings will show that "the scope of the rip-off" at the UN is "substantially more" than the widely reported $10 billion to $11 billion in graft. But more than money is involved.

These hearings also should expose the arrogance of the secretary general and his bureaucracy. At the same time that he has refused to honor the Senate committee's request for documents, Annan has been a source of constant criticism against US operations aimed at bringing freedom to Iraq.

This isn't that complicated -- or shouldn't be. The UN authorized what is now infamously known as the 'Oil-for-Food' program in which Saddam Hussein was allowed to sell oil in order to get money to provide food, medicine and other necessities of life for his people suffering under the weight of Gulf-War era sanctions.

Documents obtained by the committee showed that the Iraqi government concluded deals to buy rotting foods and other damaged goods from companies that sold the goods for full price and kicked back a portion of the profits to Saddam, who used the profits to pay off UN and government officials to turn a blind eye to the thefts.

Billions and billions of dollars were siphoned off through middlemen, who kicked it back to Saddam, who in turn used the money to buy weapons.

Among the recipients of oil-for-food cash were the Palestinian terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Iranian Marxist terrorist group Mujahadeen Khalq.

Coleman's committee uncovered clear evidence of complicity between UN member states like France, Germany, Russia and China (three of whom are Permanent Members of the Security Council with permanent veto power).

The web of corruption extends all the way to the office door of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

A measure of the extent of the corruption and theft and arrogance of the UN hierarchy can be found in the fact Coleman's main ally on the Subcommittee is ranking Democrat and flaming liberal Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

They co-signed a letter to Kofi Annan, demanding the UN stop stonewalling the release of UN internal audits and blocking the Senate from interviewing relevant UN personnel.

Annan's Director of Communications, Edward Mortimer, sneered at the letter, while aides told reporters the UN Secretary General was not about to hand over confidential documents to the US Senate, equating it with handing over documents to the "Russian Duma and every other parliamentary body in the world."

One UN official up to his neck in bribes and corruption, Benon Sevan, actively discouraged his staff from probing allegations of corruption and helped block efforts by the U.N. anti-corruption unit to assess where the program was vulnerable to abuse, investigators say.

Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, reported last month that Saddam Hussein personally approved the allocation of vouchers to Sevan, among about 270 other officials and businessmen, to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi crude at a profit of 10 cents to 35 cents a barrel. For Sevan, that translated into millions of dollars in bribes.

Implicated along with China, France, Russia, Syria and other governments, which represented companies competing for billions of dollars' worth of business, the UN hierarchy stalled measures aimed at ending corruption, U.S. Ambassador Patrick F. Kennedy told a House subcommittee last month.

In response, Kofi Annan issued a statement this week to the effect that the "United States and the United Nations have the greatest impact on global issues when they work together" instead of squabbling, evidently, over little things like thirteen years of corruption, deceit and international conspiracies to keep Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in power by using the UN's Islamic majority to block efforts to remove him from power.

"I think the relationship is important," Annan told reporters Monday. "The U.S. is important for the U.N., and I hope the U.N. is also important for them."

Is the UN important for the United States? That is a critical question that will most probably be fully answered before the second Bush administration leaves office in four years.

Bush threw down the gauntlet during the height of the debate over the war with Iraq, warning the United Nations was growing increasingly irrelevant and predicting it would 'share the fate of the League of Nations in the dustbin of history'.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard insisted that Annan is "not being obstructionist" in dealing with U.S. Congressional requests for information about the oil-for-food humanitarian program.

We began this morning's examination of the UN scandal by noting the problems inherent in governing according to the precepts of pure democracy. Eckhard's comments in defense of Annan underscored the point.

"He wants to help, but there are inherent limits to what he can do as the head of an organization with 191 member states," Eckhard said.

Which is precisely the reason WHY the relationship with the UN is NOT that important to the United States. Although the US has veto power at the Security Council (as does Great Britain and Saddan's co-conspirators, France, Russia, China), in the General Assembly, the US is but one vote out of 191.

The United States is the UN's largest cash cow. Although the US vote is no more important in the UN General Assembly than that of Micronesia, US tax dollars funneled into the United Nation accounts make up one-third of the UN's operating budget for global peace-keeping efforts.

And US contributions account for 25% of the UN's annual budget. There are 191 countries in the UN. America contributes one dollar for every three dollars contributed to the UN -- by the other 190 countries combined!

Since 1945, congressional records indicate that the United States has given $30 billion to the corrupt organization as it pursues a futile enterprise and undermines the sovereignty of the United States.

The United Nations does not need to be reformed or improved to correct its flaws.

It's very nature demands it remain diametrically opposed to the American system of government. It must consistently seek to increase its power and control at the expense of sovereign nations like the United States.

Consequently, the only viable solution is an American withdrawal from the United Nations altogether.

A US withdrawal from the UN would mean its end. And America's history vis a vis efforts at global government like the failed League of Nations and failing United Nations make it extremely unlikely that America would participate in any meaningful way with any global replacement.

But, for the other 190 countries of the world, the UN -- or something like it, is essential.

The World Health Organization, World Bank, UN Development Program, UN Environment programs, Economic Commissions, UN Agriculture programs, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Court, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, UNICEF -- all these programs are interdependent elements residing under the UN's global umbrella.

The collapse of the UN would mean these organizations, committees and programs would have to seek a new sponsor. The World Bank, for example, or the World Trade Organization or the International Monetary Fund -- they aren't simply going to disappear.

But a 'new' replacement UN is unlikely. It would take too long and the world is already too globally interdependent to operate for long without these organizations.

There is only one logical candidate to pick up the pieces left behind by an imploding United Nations -- especially in a world dominated by a non-aligned United States.

Europe already has the infrastructure in place to absorb the functions and functionaries of the existing United Nations.

And Old Europe has made no secret of its intention to stand as a counter-balance to US supremacy on the world stage. Jacques Chirac is fond of describing America's supremacy as 'unipolar' and has dedicated himself to a global effort aimed at balancing the scales.

The European Union is, in fact, the ONLY viable alternative to the United Nations, and, thanks to its predictable opposition to all things American, would enjoy almost unanimous global support for its assumption of the role.

The only nations likely to have serious objections to subordinating itself to the EU similarly to the way they did the UN would be the United States and Israel.

When Hal Lindsey wrote the Late Great Planet Earth in 1969, he noted that something would have to happen to reduce or remove both Soviet and UN global influence, since Bible prophecy assigns that role in the last days to a revived form of the Roman Empire.

A bit more than a decade ago, the United States and the Soviet Union were the world's two superpowers. Europe unification was yet an unfulfilled dream.

Today, the Soviets are gone. US global power and influence is at its lowest point since the end of World War II. Europe is not only united, it is expanding its influence beyond its current borders.

The ten-nation Western European Union met in Rome in 1992 to create subordinate tiers of membership. Since then the WEU has expanded to include six Associate Member States, five Observer States, and seven 'Associate Partner' states.

All are members of the Greater European Community, but the ten-nation WEU is where the power resides. The WEU became responsible for Europe's Defense and Security establishment following the failure of the European Defense Community Treaty torpedoed by France in 1954.

On November 20, 1999, Javier Solana, who is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, was also appointed Secretary-General of the WEU.

The EU and WEU were supposed to have merged in 2000, however, as of 2004 the WEU is however still alive and much European military planning takes place within its constituent cells.

Indeed, New York University's book, "Defending Europe", paints the situation as a "revival of WEU" rather than its absorption into the greater EU.

From a purely secular geopolitical perspective, then, we find the following: The UN's Oil For Food Scandal threatens US participation in the UN.

The EU is in place to pick up the pieces. Its political power resides with Brussels, while its security and military deterrent is entrusted to the ten Full Members of the WEU.

The most powerful states within the WEU are France and Germany, both of whom are dedicated to replacing the US with a WEU-sponsored European superstate overseen by its Ten Full Members.

Taken together with the EU's efforts to insinuate itself into the Arab-Israeli peace process, one finds every single element inherent to the prophet Daniel's outline of the seven-year reign of the antichrist during the Tribulation Period -- already either in place, or about to fall into place.

" . . .and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." (Daniel 9:26)

The 'people of the prince who shall come' were the Roman Legions, who, in AD 70, destroyed the 'city and the sanctuary' (Jerusalem and the Temple).

Daniel's coming 'prince' is the antichrist. Daniel says that, after coming to power as the 'prince' of a revived Roman Empire, he will come up with a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict that leaves Israel in at least part possession of the Temple Mount.

Both the WEU and the Greater European Union are currently under the control of the same maximum leader -- at this point in time, Javier Solana of Spain.

Revived Rome is in place and eagerly lobbying for a chance to play the role Daniel outlined for it 2500 years ago. Israel is in place, after 2500 years of occupation and exile.

The Arab Israeli conflict provides the backdrop for the seven year covenant Daniel said would be confirmed by the antichrist.

Astonishingly, even a prototype of the covenant is also in place. The Oslo Agreement remains an 'unconfirmed' [failed] seven-year agreement aimed at peace between the parties.

And if recent history is any indication, any agreement made between Israel and the Islamic world is unlikely to last more than the 3 1/2 years predicted by Daniel before collapsing.

Jerusalem is indeed the 'burdensome stone' the Prophet Zechariah predicted it would be in the last days.

The prophet said that 'all those who burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.' (Zechariah 12:3)

America 'burdened itself' by taking Israel's side in the conflict over Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The rest of the world has openly sided against Israel.

More UN resolutions have been passed condemning Israel since its rebirth in 1948 than against the rest of the global community combined.

Since September 2001, thousands of Americans have been killed in a war with Islamic terrorists. The cause of that war, according to our terrorist enemies, is America's support for Israel.

The global realignment of nations coincided with the implementation of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993 and in the intervening decade, has deteriorated to the point that America and Israel now stand alone against an increasingly polarized global community.

How much more clear can it be? Bible prophecy has proved itself, in this generation alone, to be 100% accurate, down to the tiniest details.

There is no rational reason why the Bible's outline for the last days will not continue to unfold before our eyes with the same accuracy and attention to detail in the days ahead as it has until now.

We are living in the last days. We are the watchmen on the wall, assigned to give the warning to a lost and dying world.

And may God bless our efforts to lead as many as possible to Him -- while there is still time.

1 posted on 11/21/2004 10:38:13 AM PST by Manic_Episode

Their abject failure and criminal activity in terms of living up to their charter, is grounds enough to throw them out of the USA for good.

Why is this tolerated by our government???

Good article - If you haven't read the "Left Behind" series of books, I highly recommend them......... a "fictionalized" version of the last days.......(meaning it is put into story form using his fictional characters) - it is very well written.

3 posted on 11/21/2004 11:53:55 AM PST by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Thank you President Bush, and thank you America!)

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.