Posted on 06/13/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by jmc813
This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.
The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.
The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.
What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.
Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?
The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.
Well, we have to look at the same question I asked BE: what, exactly, IS "the national interest?"
In the current situation, for example, it may be in OUR interests that UN troops are sent to Sudan (or Congo.) Both countries are run by slimebag despots who are wholesale eliminating parts of their population.
BUT--there are not a whole lotta US troops to spare.
We will HARDLY impinge on friendship over such matters as "the national interest," but I'd still love to find a definition which works and leaves sleazeball Presidents (there will be a couple more, sometime...) with little alternative in military decisions.
See my post immediately above for a situation in which the UN could actually be useful (not that they will, but...)
JPII was not stupid. I know who his #2-ranking emissary to the UN is, and that guy's not stupid, either. They knew full well that the UN has, ah, problems.
But a UN which is rightly-ordered and has integrity would certainly BE an asset to the US.
Expanding? Nope.
Eliminating? Yep.
check this...
If for some reason it's in our interests to send troops into those places to quell the situation, then we might as well send our own troops. If we don't have enough troops for that, then (I suppose) we could pay another country to go in and take care of it, which is functionally no different from having the UN do it, seeing as how we'd end up paying for it anyway. But to have a permanent establishment like the UN is not necessary, and always has a dangerous potential.
Please choose Pakistan the instant you develop testicles!
Did you catch your man George on the tube today?
He's heartsick about the EU situation. I guess it is quite a set back for the one worlders. ;o)
I'm surprised no one responded to my question...maybe they thought I was making trouble? I was seriously trying to gauge the consensus of anti-UN freepers. There are so many freepers who have bought into globalism I'm trying to find true conservative freepers.
streetpreacher answered you and voted to eliminate Patriot also.
Thanks for noticing. :-)
We can also allow Mexicans and Latin Americans to earn American citizenship through military service. With GI bill, one generation from rural Mexican poverty to college credentials and home ownership (and conservative Republicanism since they are already social conservatives and will be military conservatives) via six or so years active duty service in good behavior and reserve status thereafter.
As to Pakistan, a green light to India would do a lot. Otherwise, we will get there when we get there. What paleos think of the manhood of interventionists never has been a concern and never will be and there is no reason why it should be.
i & i: You have as much in the way of my researching for you as you are going to get. I will not honor your imagined authority to dictate what I supposedly owe you. Read despicable pantywaist Raimondo's anti-American and anti-Semitic blatherings on antiwar.com or Fleming's on Chronicles.com or not as you see fit. I owe you absolutely nothing. I personally hope that the wars place an especially heavy burden on you in material terms. I do not wish you well. You are NOT conservatives as anyone active in the movement would readily realize. Peddle your sniffles elsewhere. I will respond as I see fit or not as I see fit.
I now leave both of you to ninenot who may be closer to your views but is infinitely more rational.
In #112: Fleming's anti-American blatherings. I have no direct knowledge of anti-Semitism at the Institute.
American sovereignty will take care of itself when we beef up the military to Reaganite levels and buy it all the new toys that are needed.
Is your slogan: Freedom for me but not for thee??????
You're right, no "true conservative" would demand that fruit-loops who make wild charges should actually back them up, instead of rambling on about everything else under the sun and making paranoid statements about their questioners. I don't know what I could possibly have been thinking...
Run Ron Paul for President. See Ron Paul crushed again.
That presupposes that you are capable of thinking which is not suggested by paleopantywaistism or your posts.
I prefer getting out of the UN, replacing it with nothing, beefing up the American military, intervening unilaterally whenever and wherever the USA sees fit with the assistance of freedom-loving nations who want their part of the honor. I also favor refusing to acknowledge fraudulent claims of neo-NevilleChamberlains to the name "conservative" with or without prefixes. Cowardice as national policy is not conservatism. I also believe in aggressively attacking such fraudulent claims and claimants.
If you are looking for fruit loops try Raimondo or Andrew Sullivan. One is your foreign minister. The other is just so darned concerned about the lack of luxuries for the criminal prisoners at Guantanamo.
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.