Posted on 06/29/2002 2:20:03 PM PDT by OPS4
Declaring War on the United Nations Jonathan Gurwitz Saturday, June 29, 2002 "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security."
– Article 39 of the United Nations Charter
***** The moral underpinnings of the war against terrorism have created some uncomfortable diplomatic situations for the United States over the last nine months. When U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan, the legal oppression of women was often cited as one of the evils we were fighting against.
But the conditions that women in Afghanistan formerly faced under the Taliban do not differ significantly from those that women in Saudi Arabia, our principle Arab ally in the war on terror, endure to this day.
The same can be said of the extremist, theocratic nature of the Taliban regime that mandated execution or bodily mutilation for offenses ranging from fornication to homosexuality and theft. Yet again, few American officials want to admit that our Saudi friends and other putative allies in the war against terror are substantially comparable in this regard.
This month, the inconsistency of our stated goals and diplomatic reality came clearly into focus as Syria assumed the temporary presidency of the United Nations Security Council. By President Bush's own definition that we will make no distinction between those who commit terrorist acts and those who harbor them, the U.S. ought to have declared war on the United Nations on June 1.
Syria remains on the U.S. State Department's list of official sponsors of terrorism, one of seven countries so designated. Some 35,000 Syrian troops have occupied Lebanon since 1975, where they provide protection and support for a variety of terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the brutal suppression of the uprising in the Syrian city of Hama, where the Syrian military massacred 20,000 civilians.
Hezbollah is responsible for the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63 embassy personnel, the kidnapping and murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut in 1984, and the kidnapping and murder of Marine Colonel Rich Higgins, the commander of U.N. forces in Lebanon, in 1990.
More recently, the State Department identified links between Osama bin Laden and terrorist groups in Syrian-controlled Lebanon. Bin Laden used Hezbollah experts to build the bomb used to attack the USS Cole and kill 17 American sailors in 2000.
The Times of London reported last week that one of 24 Iraqi airplanes recently sent to Syria, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid following the collapse of a dam, is believed to have returned to Iraq loaded with equipment essential for the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Syria has also helped Iraq evade United Nations sanctions by illegally selling over $1 billion of Iraqi oil annually, money that Saddam Hussein is using not to feed his people but to make preparations to kill more Americans.
Despite this brazen track record in support of terrorism and in contravention of the U.N.'s own sanctions, the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted last October to grant Syria non-permanent member status on the Security Council, which placed it in line to preside over the Security Council this month.
On June 5, Islamic Jihad carried out a suicide bombing in northern Israel that killed 17 people. The absurdity of the situation at the U.N. became clear when Israel requested that the Security Council, presided over by Syria, condemn Syria for supporting terrorism. The Security Council took no action.
Declaring war on the United Nations may not be a realistic possibility. But as a rhetorical device it might be useful to remind the diplomats in midtown Manhattan that they, too, must decide whether they are with us or against us in the war on terror.
Jonathan Gurwitz has a background in domestic and international policy. E-mail him at jmgur@swbell.net.
Even in this story, the problem isn't the UN; it's Syria. We would still have the problem with them if the UN didn't exist.
OTOH, the media in NYC is so very compliant. They never publish anything negative about the UN or any of the UN staff. And, it would be so easy to put together story after story asking how an African bureaucrat could afford what seems to be his on what we know he makes as salary. And, of course, the CIA can't opearte in NYC so all they have to watch out for is the NYPD and the FBI. The NYPD ddoesn't care because many of the high livers are diplomats. The FBI doesn't have time when they are working on press releases and proving that Mrs. Clinton isn't guilty.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
All of which is why I think Harare, Zimbabwe, would be an excellent new HQ for the UN. Most delegates would feel right at home in the culture, their money will go MUCH further, they'd be helping the local, uh, economy, and they are guaranteed a compliant (or else) press.
YOU DO NOT KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE PAST FIFTY YEARS!
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
American Policy Center on-line Declaration of Independence from the U.N.
Also, I recall that the un has one or more "contingency sites" located in other nations... let's banish them there--
Also:
Child sex book given out at U.N. summit
|
|
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.