What's next for the U.N.?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 29, 2003 | March 29, 2003

[Tailgunner Joe]

The first week of fighting has brought news reports from independent journalists that reveal the true colors of the Iraqi regime. No one should be surprised that, in Saddam's world, POWs are shot in the head, Iraqi soldiers pretend to surrender in order to ambush Americans, and other nasty tactics are implemented as reported thus far.

U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has also shown his true colors: He chose to ignore Saddam's atrocities and, instead, chose to condemn the explosions in a marketplace presumed, and reported to be, attacked by U.S. missiles that may have gone astray – but which may well have been Iraqi missiles.

Additionally, on Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council showed its true colors by opening its doors to all members who wished to make statements condemning the coalition action in Iraq. Only the delegate from Kuwait spoke in favor of unseating Saddam. If anyone ever had any doubt that the U.N. is an anti-American institution, that doubt should certainly now be removed.

Perhaps, finally, America is showing its true colors – red, white and blue – by ignoring the U.N., and putting an end to Saddam's dangerous reign of terror. What comes next at the U.N. will be of historic importance.

Both Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac are insisting that the U.N., not the coalition forces, be in charge of administering post-Saddam Iraq. The Bush administration is not rushing to embrace this idea.

There are indications that the U.S. is willing to let the U.N. continue administering the "oil for food" program, and, perhaps, deliver other humanitarian aid, but in the matter of organizing a new government, the U.S. has its own ideas.

For Annan and Chirac, the issue is not the future of Iraq, but the future of the U.N. that is of greatest concern. America has persuaded 47 nations to publicly join the coalition of the willing, and with the non-public supporters, the coalition is nearly twice the size of the U.N.-backed Desert Storm coalition. This coalition includes the majority of the European Union, and the majority of NATO, leaving France and Germany, as the isolated nations.

Since both France and Germany must have the United Nations to exercise the anticipated power of the European Union, the future administration of Iraq is of utmost importance to them. If the United States ignores their demands, and creates an administrative mechanism outside the U.N., the relevance – and the future – of the U.N. and the European Union will be in question.

Despite the anti-American rhetoric that has, and will continue to spew forth from the Arab press, and much of the liberal press in the U.S., the United States should not trust the U.N. with any important mission. The U.N. has demonstrated its anti-American bias, its inefficiency, indeed, its corruption in many areas, and its inability, or unwillingness, to enforce its own resolutions.

The United Nations' vision of creating world peace through world law, judged by a world court, enforced by a world army – has failed. It has failed because Americans are not willing to surrender their freedom and sovereignty to a world government.

The conflict between national sovereignty and global government has been on a collision course since the inception of the U.N. The two forces collided on March 17, when the United States announced the end of discussions about Iraq. When allied forces moved into Iraq, without formal U.N. approval, it proved only one thing: U.N. approval is meaningless.

The same nations that provided the money and the military power to drive Saddam out of Kuwait are now driving him from power. The fact is, the U.N.'s approval of Desert Storm had nothing to do with its success. The absence of U.N. approval has nothing to do with the success of the current battle. In fact, had it not been for the U.N.'s involvement with Desert Storm, which prevented the removal of Saddam 11 years ago, this battle would not have been necessary.

It's time to let the U.N. fade away. Some of the international organizations that now operate under its auspices may, indeed, be important. If they are, they can earn their continued existence by providing a real service to the nations that pay for their existence. More than 130 U.N. agencies and organizations have become nothing more than self-perpetuating bureaucracies working to justify their own existence.

Now is the time to support Congressman Ron Paul's HR1146, a bill calling for the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Now is the time for the United States to ignore the demands of Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, and help the Iraqi people discover the freedom that Saddam has denied them. Now is the time for the United States to stand firmly on the principles of freedom, and not in the shadow of the U.N.

[William Terrell]

I think that there are a couple points that need to be mentioned.

Congress did not declare war under the constitution. It passed a resolution authorizing the president to carry out UN sanctions against Iraq spelled out in at least three UN documents, each one empowering any member state to carry out their provisions. One provision, if I remember correctly, is the use of military force against Iraq for refusal to comply.

We are presently on a UN mission, which is exactly what Congress authorized. I don't think Congress could have legitimately declared war on Iraq using Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 11 because the bitch was about Iraq violation of UN agreements (The conflict with Iraq being originally a UN project).

Yes, America says it has potential security problems with Iraq, itself and I agree, which why I support the war. Yes, The UN security council did refuse to pass that last resolution. But we have plenty of live resolutions, so we could go on the authority of the ones already passed.

So, being on a legitimate UN mission, authority given to the executive by Congress to prosecute the UN mission, the outcome of the UN mission can be reasonably claimed under UN jurisdiction. Whether I like it or not, the UN may justifiably be able to take over the post war administration.

If and when some delegation, probably French or German, brings all these points out in session, America is gaing to have a awful time coming up with plausible reasons to demurr. Either we will have to turn the tasks to the UN or we will have to formally declare our withdrawal.

If we don't, and categorically break our agreements as a member, I think this can be rightly be seen as a breach of international law governing these kind of agreements/treaties, and will just make us look like deadbeats.

Much fun will be had by all.

[Gritty]

One doesn't need a vivid imagination to see how this would have turned out differently, but for 567 voters in Florida - and the surprising willingness of the GOP to go to the mat to persevere for justice in that election!

[AFreeBird]

Amen brother, Amen.

The alternate outcome would have been a nightmare of Biblical proportions!

[Torie]

As LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover, it is better to have the entity inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in. In the end, despite all the teeth knashing on FR, the UN doesn't do much harm (we won't let it), and sometimes does some good. JMO.

[Torie]

For the UN takeover to have more resonance, a lot of other rich nations are going to have to cut checks to the cause of reconstruction in the short term until the oil gets flowing. That won't happen, and I don't think the US will be under much pressure to cede real power. Of course, we want the UN there as the front organization.

[patriot5186]

Congressman Ron Paul's HR1146, a bill calling for the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N.

That would be GREAT! Contact your congressman now!