Time for the US to Get Out of the United Nations

Summary: The propaganda surrounding the UN is such that most people are still blithely unaware that the United Nations wants to impose its own tax on all financial transactions, exercise total power over land use throughout the world, require everyone to carry a national or international identity card, require population control, and has even instituted its own court to prosecute anyone for whatever it deems to be crimes "against humanity." In addition, the UN wants its own independent military forces.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM] Here’s a suggestion. Let’s take the millions in dues we pay to the United Nations and reallocate it to help pay the cost of our war to liberate the Iraqis? We pay more than a quarter of the operating budget for that Epicenter of Bloviation.

I don’t think we’re getting our money’s worth. For example, in September 2002 Congress voted to fund the operations of the US Department of State to the tune of $8.6 billion. Included was $244 million for so-called back dues for the United Nations, plus $78 million in current dues. Of the overall amount the State Department will disburse, $891 million is for assessed expenses to international organizations; UNESCO is one of those agencies. Also included was $726 million for international “peacekeeping” activities which we largely underwrite, but for which the UN gets all the credit.

I admit it is an odd thought, but I keep wondering if George W. Bush hasn’t deliberately put the skids to the United Nations? That speech he gave in September 2002, warning the General Assembly that it was on the brink of “irrelevancy” really got my attention. I don’t recall any president ever saying anything like that. Ever.

Other Presidents have expressed their frustration. Other Presidents have withheld the dues. But only George went to the podium of the General Assembly---where the vote of the United States is exactly equal to the vote of Tuvalu, Liechtenstein, and Barbados---and told them that they were on the brink of irrelevancy.

Then there was the drawn-out dance for the UN Security Council in which the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, clearly demonstrated that Iraq was, after twelve years and seventeen resolutions, still defying it. The Security Council has shown little ability to thwart wars and other conflicts from its inception. It did nothing in 1994 to stop the Rwandan Hutu's from slaughtering 800,000 people in that nation. It remained incapable of stopping Serbia’s “ethnic cleansing.” A dozen years of on-again, off-again inspections in Iraq accomplished nothing. The US still has troops in South Korea after the 1950’s “UN Police Action.”

The propaganda surrounding the UN is such that most people are still blithely unaware that the United Nations wants to impose its own tax on all financial transactions, exercise total power over land use throughout the world, require everyone to carry a national or international identity card, require population control, and has even instituted its own court to prosecute anyone for whatever it deems to be crimes "against humanity." In addition, the UN wants its own independent military forces.

If this sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, you’re right. And I didn’t even mention its so-called environmental program that has banned some of the most effective pesticides needed to protect people against the many diseases spread by insects. Thanks to the UN, malaria has made a triumphant return, killing millions every year because of its ban on DDT. Then, of course, there was the UN ban on Freon, one of the most beneficial chemicals ever created. It no longer can be used in any air conditioner or refrigerator, nor as an effective fire-extinguishing agent. And it was cheap!

In sum, the United Nations has hardly been a benefactor to mankind. Why does the United States or any other nation bow to its baseless authority? What useful purpose does it serve that cannot be replicated by other international groups?

For example, the Bush administration has endorsed a “humanitarian role” in Iraq for the Security Council. It balked, however, at the thought of granting it a political role in the reconstruction of Iraq when the war ends. Instead, the UN administered “oil-for-food” program is to be kept in place to provide for the funding of humanitarian needs. May I ask the obvious question? Why can’t a comparable program be administered independently of the UN? Answer: it can.

Which brings me full circle back to wondering if the Bush administration isn’t actively putting in motion those actions and events that will render the United Nations unnecessary in a few years. I even dare to wonder if, given any further excuse, Congress may decide it is time to withdraw entirely?

One thing is clear, however. Columnists like Robert Tracinski, George Will and Linda Chavez are now actually saying out loud what others have only hinted at. It is time for the US to get out of the United Nations.

The UN's Power Path: Restricting Freedom Under the Mantra of "Sustainable Development"

Summary: There can be no private property, free enterprise or individual liberty under Sustainable Development.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM] Today as the United Nations appears weakened by its complete failure to be a serious player in the US-Iraq war, many of our nation's leaders dismiss concerns that the organization threatens American sovereignty.

However, the major threat from the UN lies between the lines of numerous, well-orchestrated treaties already in place. These treaties, protocols, and conventions, particularly dealing with environmental issues, are tools with which the UN continues to fulfill its agenda for global governance.

Through those treaties, the UN intends to transform sovereign nations into feudal-like entities by making Nature the central organizing theme for their economy and society.

This is clearly defined in the UN's Biodiversity Treaty which states: "Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand of nature's web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature's rhythms."

This view of society is a major departure from human civilization as it has emerged over thousands of years. It requires changing nearly every aspect of human existence, including how and where we live, grow and prepare food, travel, work and associate. In short, the agenda for global governance seeks to rip apart established human society.

To achieve this environmentalist goal, an agenda has been set in motion through the aegis of United Nations' treaties and agreements. Compliance with those treaties allows the global governance agenda to forcibly work its way down through federal, to state, to local government policy.

One of the major tools for implementing the agenda is another UN treaty called Agenda 21. Like the Biodiversity Treaty, it first surfaced at the UN's Earth Summit in 1992. Agenda 21 is the United Nations' blueprint for the complete restructuring of nations to fit into a proper mold for global governance. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a completely managed society, dictating the process to be used for industry, agriculture, housing development and even education.

This is not just an environmental policy, but an all-encompassing blueprint to rule from an all-powerful central government. It is a "government" devoid of any vote by the citizens affected by its decisions.

***

The common name for the policy is "Sustainable Development." Americans who profess to love this nation's precious liberty should learn that Sustainable Development is their enemy. Sustainable Development is the "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore called a "wrenching transformation of society."

Wrenching indeed. Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of a national zoning system, run by non-elected, faceless bureaucrats and special interest groups.

Under Sustainable Development, locally elected officials are no longer the single driving force in making decisions for the community. Most planning is done behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils," armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines and taxpayer money.

According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family homes and cars are among products that have already been determined to be "unsustainable."

The logo used in Sustainable Development literature depicts three connecting circles; each labeled with a defining category of the ruling principle. One is labeled "social equity," another, "economic prosperity," and the third, "ecological integrity." These three categories encompass every aspect of human life and each is a major factor in the agenda for global governance and the demise of national sovereignty and independence.

"Social equity" and "social justice" require that the earth's wealth be "shared" between those who produce and those who don't. It's every welfare program and wealth--redistribution scheme ever devised. It is Communism.

Under Sustainable Development, business is little more than a tool for the social planning managers. Partnerships between business and government decide what kinds of products are to be produced, who will produce them, and how they will be produced. All must be done in accordance with very strict environmentally-correct procedures. Taxes to enforce compliance ensure proper business conduct.

"Ecological integrity" is the deception used by the social planners to sucker Americans into accepting their timeless schemes for power. In the name of protecting the environment; in the name of justice, safety, and prosperity, Sustainable Development is fast becoming official policy in federal and state governments, and in every large city and small burg in the nation.

The fact is your community is now a "Sustainable Community." There are no exceptions. Do these items sound familiar to you? Have you heard your local officials discussing how to curtail growth and block development? Are they talking about historic preservation and green space? Are they talking about how to control business? Has the subject of public transportation come up? All are part of the agenda under Sustainable Development.

There can be no private property, free enterprise or individual liberty under Sustainable Development. Instead, group thought, plans and actions dictate a well-orchestrated agenda designed to transform America.

This is totalitarianism. It's about controlling our lives with decisions made by committees that will grow more powerful and more oppressive with every passing day and with each new regulation proposed by newly empowered special interest groups. There will be no satisfying their lust for power and no part of our lives will be overlooked.

The logo for Sustainable Development, with its three connecting circles, should be viewed by all who love liberty as the new swastika of our era. There is no greater threat to our way of life.

Sustainable Development is the central tool by which the UN intends to intends to impose its global governance agenda and is the key reason why the UN remains a threat to American independence.

About the Author: Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center: www.americanpolicy.org

Saddam's billions from oil for food corruption
By James Bone in New York

KICKBACKS from Iraq’s oil sales have run into billions of dollars because of loopholes in the United Nations Oil-for-Food system designed to feed the Iraqi people.
Diplomats said yesterday that Saddam Hussein’s regime sometimes exacted an illegal surcharge of as much as 55-75 cents (30-45p) a barrel on its daily oil sales of some two million barrels under the programme, although the amount was generally 15-25 cents.

“We thought they were getting at least $500 million a year in illegal kickbacks,” one Western official said.

The money funnelled to Baghdad helped to finance its banned weapons programmes, but it could also have been used to buy influence abroad.

Iraq was able to choose which companies were awarded lucrative contracts to export oil or to import food or other humanitarian supplies.

The main beneficiaries were companies from Saddam’s political protectors at the United Nations, some of them trading companies with little more than a brass plate on the door.

Over the seven years of the Oil-for-Food programme, Russian companies got $7.3 billion of Iraqi business, almost twice as much as firms from any other country. Next on the list of leading trading partners were Egypt, with $4.3 billion; France, with $3.7 billion; and Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and China with $3 billion each.

Diplomats said that British firms won “minimal” business, almost all of it in the health sector, worth a couple of hundred million dollars.

The Oil-for-Food programme began operation in 1996 after Iraq agreed to allow the UN to supervise its oil sales and the purchases of food and medicine it made with the revenue.

All oil contracts have to be approved by the UN sanctions committee, made up of the 15 Security Council members. The money is deposited in a UN escrow account at the Banque Nationale de Paris, where it can be spent to purchase goods approved by the sanctions committee.

Over the years the Security Council lifted any restriction on the amount of oil that Iraq could sell and the oil price rose, sending Baghdad’s oil revenues up to an annual rate of some $20 billion.

During the same period the council progressively lifted sanctions on civilian goods that could be purchased with the oil money. Iraq can buy anything except military equipment, unless it is on a “goods review list” of dual-use items that require specific sanctions committee approval.

The opportunity for siphoning off money from Oil-for-Food business arose because of the difficulty of setting a realistic price for Iraq’s crude.

The oil price is established by UN oil “overseers”, who try to make it track the world market. The contract price must then be approved by the sanctions committee, where any single member can block it.

There were originally three overseers, but the US and Norwegian members quit, leaving only a Russian who was sometimes criticised for setting the price too high. For several years, Russia blocked new replacements. But Moscow eventually relented. Iraq was able to exploit price fluctuations to ensure that the UN-fixed price allowed enough margin for extra profits to be skimmed off.

Britain led a campaign last year to change the UN system to “retroactive pricing”, so that actual, rather than predicted, market conditions were taken into account. The result has been that illegal surcharges were reduced, before the war, to an estimated three to five cents a barrel.

Diplomats also suspect that Iraqi officials profited from trading on the oil markets on inside information from Baghdad's decisions, such as its frequent moves to suspend and resume pumping crude.

The Oil-for-Food programme operates in great secrecy. The sanctions committee meets behind closed doors and details of transactions are not made public.

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.