Skip to comments.Is the United Nations Worth Saving?
Posted on 11/24/2004 12:42:40 PM PST by FairOpinion
For a good many years, it has been a fair question whether or not the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. For the first 15 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1960, it served its purpose as a handy forum for the world's variegated nations, and even occasionally served a useful purpose -- as in 1950, when it lent its name to the American-led war to defend South Korea from the North Korean invasion. (Though even that was possible only because the Soviet Union, which could have vetoed the move, had temporarily walked out of the Security Council in a huff over something or other.)
But then, about 1960, a flood of new ex-colonial nations entered the world body, and quickly organized themselves as the Third World, ostensibly neutral in the epochal struggle between the Communist powers and the Free World. By virtue of sheer numbers this new entity seized control of the General Assembly -- and with it control of the United Nations' central bureaucracy -- and began selling itself to the higher of the two global bidders: Washington and Moscow. Slowly, however, under the leadership of India, the Third World began siding regularly with Moscow, and the United Nations followed suit.
This thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs lasted until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That forced the Untied Nations, which, like any bureaucracy, is interested first and foremost in self-preservation, to seek a new sponsor. In the past decade, as France and Germany have increasingly seen themselves as the leaders of Europe in an effort to create a counterbalance to the American superpower; the United Nations has progressively yielded to their guidance. Today, it is little more than a marginally useful tool in their schemes to rein in the United States.
That is one reason why, in 2002 and 2003, the United Nations did its unsuccessful best to block the American invasion of Iraq, despite Saddam Hussein's defiance of 12 successive U.N. demands that it abandon its development of chemical, biological and (if possible) nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And that is also why U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is today contending that any American military effort is "illegal" if Washington doesn't first receive the United Nations' permission.
All this would be more than enough reason for the United States to withdraw formally from all participation in the United Nations' brazen efforts to run the world. But recently it has become clear that the Secretariat of the United Nations, or at least many highly placed officials in it, are quite simply corrupt. The United Nations' appalling mismanagement of the high-minded "Oil for Food" program, under which Hussein was allowed to sell Iraqi oil ostensibly in return for desperately needed food and medical aid for his people, may well turn out to be the biggest instance of thievery in the entire world history of theft.
As the program actually worked, the United Nations allowed Hussein to sell oil to chosen beneficiaries at artificially low prices -- oil which they could then resell at the market price, pocketing the difference. The beneficiaries apparently included U.N. officials and (not surprisingly) well-placed French, German and Russian players. Small wonder that their governments, and the United Nations itself, bitterly opposed George W. Bush's intention to topple Hussein!
The scope of the corruption is now under investigation by the panel appointed Annan and led by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is personally above suspicion. But Volcker seems to be having difficulty getting the cooperation he needed from Annan's office, and he may be forced to report that he is not being allowed to do the job that needs to be done.
A better avenue of investigation, therefore, may be the Congressional committee headed by Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman. This committee, too, has reported that it is running into foot-dragging at the United Nations. But it will press on, and there is reason to hope that it will come up with some answers, however shocking they may be.
All of which makes even more urgent a serious reevaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"
===== Mr. Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
I can even say it in Spanish "NO"!
Another good editorial:
Evicting the United Nations
" Well, President Bush, the United Nations is a treason within. It is a cancer, a pox, a pestilence on itself and America. We've known that the United Nations is a corrupt and sycophantic organization--sycophantic to our enemies, of course, not to us. We've known it for years. Only now, however, has its true crimes come to light.
You said it yourself, Mr. President, that any nation that harbors or supports terrorism would be viewed by the United States as a hostile regime. Well, the United Nations fits that bill. It may not have the kind of borders you find on a map, but it is a regime, and it is most certainly harboring and supporting terrorism. As history proves, when it comes to the interests of America, indeed the world, the United Nations can and does serve only one interest.
This week, a group called Move America Forward started a television ad campaign, and put forth a petition, asking this administration to remove the United Nations from American soil, and to stop all funding of this corrupt group unless and until a full accounting of U.S. taxpayer contributions to it is made. I urge everyone to sign this petition. More than that, however, I urge you to write to your congressmen and senators, the congressional leadership, and the president, and demand that we not only kick the United Nations out of the United States, but that we permanently and completely withdraw all diplomatic, financial, and military support, and annul our membership in the United Nations.
If we're going to fight terrorism, folks, this will certainly move us in the right direction."
Worth saving for what reason?
No (never was worth having either)
The UN needs to be eliminated, not saved.
Short answer - NO!
The UN ceased to be a viable organization for anything a long time ago. If it is to continue, I say we toss those idiots out of NYC, rent the space to something that will benefit NYC and the rest of the country and turn in our keys. The UN has not supported us worth a crap for a long time so who really needs them anyway?
Good bye and good riddence
No, non,nein,nyet...you get the message.
We are the ones who are giving it legitimacy, by going to them, it's time we stopped that.
Form another UNCORRUPT group to work out problems before going to war.
I think we need to proactively dissolve them. Without the US and Japan, who are providing 50% of their funding, they collapse, and it's high time.
NO !! The UN is not worth saving ! It is a disgrace!
The UN and the Gangsters like Kofi Annan and Jock Chriac and the the rest of the criminals on the Oil For Food Scam are the real World Criminals responsible for the Terrorists and the Saddam regime. The Iraqi Wars, the Sanctions did not work because they were bribed and our son's and daughter's must face death to reverse their corruption. Arrest these Gangsters and get the US out of the UN and The UN out of the US!! NO more money, cut them off NOW!
about as worth saving as our ass clown tax code.
If Bush would get us out of the UN, repeal the 16th amendment and substituted it with national sales tax, privatize social security, and win the war on terror, we need to find a nice large rock on Mount Rushmore for him - he will have changed the US and the world for the better for the next several hundred years.
And I think he CAN do it. I hope he will.
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.