Skip to comments.
Thank God for the death of the UN
Guardian Unlimited ^
| March 21, 2003
| Richard Perle
Posted on 03/20/2003 6:19:23 PM PST by conservativecorner
Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions. As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.
A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.
This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".
But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.
In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.
Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.
This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.
Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week's Spectator.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ineffectiveun
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: conservativecorner
Unfortunately, the UN isn't dead. Please continue to email, fax and phone your homeboys and the White House calling for our removal from this hideous organization.
On Fox News today, it was said that the Iraqi accounts being frozen will be put into a UN Trust fund and held for the people of Iraq. Yeah, right! Let the siphoning begin!
To: conservativecorner
Since 9/11 ALL BETS ARE OFF. SO IS THE UN
3
posted on
03/20/2003 6:22:57 PM PST
by
DD938
(God Bless America & Great Britian ( an old Navy veteran))
To: conservativecorner
Ouch. In its defense - and I can't believe I'm even trying - in its defense, the UN is doing no more than it was designed to do, and embarrassingly incapable of doing what it has been advertised to do. I believe Perle is correct - the part that will survive will be a collective good-works organization, and not to be derided, but to have its disgusting and wasteful administrative leech excised and its role redefined. But collective security isn't its function. That will be regional, IMHO. The only entity capable of worldwide projection of force at the moment is not collective, and if it - we - show self-restraint in its employment that will be quite challenging enough.
To: conservativecorner
"This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France"
Nice aside...
To: conservativecorner
I heard the former US ambassador to Iraq this morning. He had a conversation with Saddam 12 years ago. Supposedly, after the Gulf War, Saddam was hoping that the UN would get involved just like they did and he was hoping for an unending string of sanction after sanction. He said that it would give him time. The UN was Saddam's perfect tool.
Knowing this, why would our guys give ANY part of the rebuilding of Iraq to the a-holes who put us in harm's way? They have proven to us that all they are good at is gumming up the works.
Ya don't do that to yer friends.
6
posted on
03/20/2003 6:37:20 PM PST
by
Slyfox
To: Slyfox
Ditto.
7
posted on
03/20/2003 6:39:41 PM PST
by
Maeve
(Siobhan's daughter and sometime banshee.)
To: WoofDog123
Don't forget how our national security was almost decided by the Guinean president's witch doctor.
8
posted on
03/20/2003 6:44:44 PM PST
by
struwwelpeter
(vashe blagorodie, gospozha udacha...)
To: ETERNAL WARMING
I'm with you!
9
posted on
03/20/2003 6:55:48 PM PST
by
MeekMom
(( Please visit http://CNLGLFG.com) (HUGE Ann-Fan!!!) (Missing the Gipper Terribly!))
To: ETERNAL WARMING
I certainly don't believe leaving the U.N. will benefit the United States. I don't believe our government believes that either. Don't expect our departure any time soon. Think about the motivations for such. We will save a lot of money if we leave. However, we could cut funds to the U.N. without leaving. I think it's about spite. Do you want the U.S. to leave the U.N. out of spite? I think we may be better off having representation in this body. On the other hand, I do believe that at least the security council should be dissolved.
To: conservativecorner
As far as I'm concerned, deposing Saddam and destroying the UN is like buy one get one free.
11
posted on
03/20/2003 7:31:38 PM PST
by
Maceman
To: conservativecorner
Who the hell is Shirley Williams? I am racking my brain but nothing is coming to mind.
To: conservativecorner
that is called a two far one both of them the world can do without
13
posted on
03/20/2003 8:16:53 PM PST
by
solo gringo
(Always Ranting Always Rite)
To: Mizzoutiger
Hey Neighbor -
Please explain how continuing United States membership in the UN will benefit the citizens of our country.
Will we be safer?
Richer?
Better looking?
More popular?
Tigers win the NCAA basketball tournament?
Not likely...
14
posted on
03/20/2003 8:51:20 PM PST
by
Augie
To: Augie
As was talked about in the article, the U.N. is not completely useless. I am in agreement with the idea that the U.N. IS completely uselss in dealing with conflicts. However, there still remains all the human oriented missions the U.N. takes on. It would still be in the U.S.'s best interest to have a voice in how funds are spent in this world.
I don't think this will benefit the American people directly. But to disregard the good things the U.S. can accomplish in the U.N. is shortsighted.
We need not worry about the security council anymore though. I agree mostly with the article. Like I said before, disband it. It only serves to limit our sovereignty.
To: Augie
Oh btw... do you think Kofi can ball? I'm sure coach Q would funnel some "perks" his way if he got game.
To: conservativecorner
I won't believe it until the UN building is imploded and the commie asswipes are shipped off to Brussles on a slow boat escorted by Trident Nuke subs.
Anything less would be intelectual masterbation.
17
posted on
03/20/2003 9:19:04 PM PST
by
PRO 1
(POX on posters who's political bent causes them to refuse to be confused by the FACTS!!!!!!)
To: Mizzoutiger
We can save the humanitarian and relief related functions of the UN. However I agree with Richard Perle that as a political instrument for world security, the UN has proved itself to be irrelevant. For the likes of me, I can't see why we would crawl back to Dominique Villain and Vladmimir Puke to obtain their permission to defend ourselves. We'll definitely need help in reconstructing Iraq after the war. Heaven forbid we should allow countries who contributed nothing to its liberation to have any say in its future. And no American government will look to a vote on the UN next time before exercising its sovereign authority to defend itself from any and all emerging threats in the world.
To: ETERNAL WARMING
The Lucis (Lucifer) Trust and the United Nations seem very innocuous on the front but their agenda is the ruination of souls and the conversion of the world.
The Lucis (Lucifer) Trust is on WOR radio, New York, New York City's 2nd-Largest AM Radio Station
WOR Radio 710 AM on you dial every Sunday from 7:30 am - 8 am. I happened to stumble on it one morning and have been researching it for a few weeks now. New Age and Satan Worship.
Here are some links
http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane/nasymb.shtml
http://www.oneworld.ru/lucis-rus/lucispub/
Teaching God's children to worship "Divine Nature"
http://getusout.org/un/articles/essay.htm
The Earth Charter
http://getusout.org/earthcharter/
http://getusout.org/earthcharter/index.htm
UNESCO: A Budding Global School Board
http://getusout.org/un/articles/unesco.htm
http://getusout.org/un/articles/newworldreligion.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-16-2002/vo18no25_ark.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/focus/earth_charter/index.htm
Rebutting Rockefeller
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/11-04-2002/vo18no22_rockefeller.htm
http://getusout.org/earthworship/index.htm
http://getusout.org/un/articles/rockford_ark.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-16-2002/vo18no25_ark.htm
The European Union's Stealth Attack on Religion
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/07-31-2000/insider/vo16no16_eu.htm
http://thenewamerican.com/focus/religion/index.htm ____________________________________________________
The Catholic Church is against Communism and Socialism, Make sure the socialists do not take over; they are working from within the church and are part of the media and will stop at nothing from destroying the Church.
NOSTIS ET NOBISCUM
Part of the 45 Goals of Communism
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
__________________________________________
Lucis Trust - The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations
33 Segments surrounded by sprigs of acacia
'Welcome to the United Nations. It's your World'...
By, Atrayu The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations The Lucis Trust The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust. At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 866 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order. Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defence in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow). Luci's Trust sponsors among others the following organizations: UN, Greenpeace Int., Greenpeace USA, Amnesty Int. and UNICEF. The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the "New Spirituality" and the gathering "New World Order" based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles. Seven years after the birth of the UN, a book was published by the theosophist and founder of the Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, claiming that "Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines [for the preparation of the New Age] can be seen in the "planning" of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan... From the very start of this unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans". [Alice B. Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age (Lucis Press, 1955), Vol. II, p.35.] Although she did not spell out clearly the identity of these 'three occult factors', she did reveal to her students that "Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group - a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many fourth ray disciples, if you could but realise it, and their point of meditative focus is the intuitional or Buddhic plane - the plane upon which all hierarchical activity is today to be found'. [Ibid. p.220.] To this end, the Lucis Trust, under the leadership of Foster and Alice Bailey, started a group called 'World Goodwill' - an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is "to cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ" [One Earth, the magazine of the Findhorn Foundation, October/November 1986, Vol. 6, Issue 6, p.24.] But the esoteric work inside the UN does not stop with such recognized occult groupings. Much of the impetus for this process was initiated through the officership of two Secretary-Generals of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld (held office: 1953-1961) and U Thant (held office: 1961-1971) who succeeded him, and one Assistant Secretary-general, Dr. Robert Muller. In a book written to celebrate the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin (and edited by Robert Muller), it is revealed "Dag Hammarskjöld, the rational Nordic economist, had ended up as a mystic. He too held at the end of his life that spirituality was the ultimate key to our earthly fate in time and space". [Robert Muller (ed.), The Desire to be Human: A Global Reconnaissance of Human Perspectives in an Age of Transformation (Miranana, 1983), p.304.] Sri Chinmoy, the New Age guru, meditation leader at the UN, wrote: "the United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation." William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism". http://www.lucistrust.org You can find out much more about them and how they're involved with the work of the United Nations by following their link "World Goodwill" at the top of their home page.
The Aquarian Age Community http://www.aquaac.org/ This Website is sponsored by the United Nations and the whole NWO philosophy is there. The page which explains the work of the Aquarian Age Community, as they call themselves, has this proud quote at the header of their page at http://www.aquaac.org/about/about.html Such a grandeur is ahead! Such a great step awaits a fiery affirmation. Our teaching and the affirmation of the Higher Principles will reveal so much that is great to humanity! A great period is drawing near: Thus we do create together.Fiery World Vol. III, par. 149 Amongst the many 'enlightening' pages in this website, you can easily find 'fascinating' articles entitled: "The New World Order and the Work of the UN" http://www.aquaac.org/un/nwo.html "The World Spiritual Teacher, the Esoteric Community and the United Nations" http://www.aquaac.org/meetings/rttop.html Preparing the Way for the Reappearance of the World Spiritual Teacher, the Work of the United Nations and the World-Wide Esoteric Community http://www.aquaac.org/meetings/RT2001.html and many more articles. This is not Christian theology but New Age paganism. You can also read the NWO quotes I posted, further down this page. Here's another by Curtis Dall, FD Roosevelt's son in law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father in Law: "For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations One World Money group... Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support. The UN is but a long range, international banking apparatus nearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One World Revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power. The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market... The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank." |
Under the U.N. Gavel
By Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-ID
At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).
Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.
While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).
President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?
In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?
The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?
Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?
Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.
19
posted on
03/20/2003 10:15:27 PM PST
by
Coleus
(RU-486 Kills Babies)
To: conservativecorner
"Every child is our child."
-- Motto of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisolm, when director of UN World Health Organisation
1948 -- UNESCO president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He states: "Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
World Summit on Sustainable Development
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:HR06f3YafH4C:www.vocero.org/cumbreonu/1documento/World%2520Summit%2520on%2520Sustainable%2520Development.doc+%22replace+the+10+commandments%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 Bush Says YES to UNESCO
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/19/153742.shtml http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791354,00.html United Nations: Don't Smack Your Child
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2297821.stm Your UNICEF dollars at work
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27627 The New World Religion
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-23-2002/vo18no19_religion.htm U.N. land grab in the works
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29260 http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0036.html Speak Up for Sovereignty and Patriotism!
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/jan97/psrjan97.html The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.
Dueling Vetoes
John L. Perry
Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2003
"Veto" is Latin for "I forbid."
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States each may forbid any United Nations action. Now, countervailing vetoes loom.That is another way of saying the United Nations is at long last well on its way to the ash heap of history.Which is another way of saying all of this is good news, not calamity, for the United States, for the entire Free World and for those peoples struggling under the yokes of dictatorships to become members of the Free World.
Enforce or Ignore?The present veto issue is over whether the U.N. Security Council will adopt yet another resolution - requiring once and for all time Iraq's forthwith compliance with a long string of 17 previous resolutions - demanding full disclosure and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.As it is now shaping up, the United States, in close cooperation with the United Kingdom, is expected to sponsor such a resolution within the 15-member Security Council, whose five permanent members enjoy the power of veto.One of those five, France, with the connivance of non-veto-toting Germany, is poised to sponsor a resolution aimed at preventing just such a compliance resolution. Those two will have the support of recently communist Russia and currently communist China, both of which have veto power.
Greed and AggrandizementThey are that determined, for their own reasons of selfish economic and political enhancement, to keep the regime of Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.A historic collision is about to occur. Consider the implications:
If the Security Council takes up the U.S.-U.K. resolution first, the factotums of France and Germany - with those of Russia and China dog-trotting alongside - are confronted with three options:
(a) Go along with a "yes" vote, which would cause them to have to execute a hairpin reversal of course with all the attendant embarrassing consequences domestically and internationally;
(b) Abstain, which would cost them equivalent humiliation at home and elsewhere, since even the bumfuzzled value a certain degree of constancy in their leadership, or
(c) Veto the U.S.-U.K. resolution, which would place them irreconcilably at odds with America and its allies, who far outnumber them.
On the other hand, if the French and Germans are the first to offer their resolution, which would litter the Iraqi landscape with U.N. "inspections" bureaucracies and dot the sky over Iraq with French and Russian "surveillance" aircraft, here are the options confronting the United States and the United Kingdom:
(a) President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair could approve its adoption, about as likely as either one resigning from office, which is what a complete reversal of their positions would honorably call for;
(b) Abstain, a posture leaving those two as emasculated impotents adrift on the world scene, at the whim of the likes of France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria and on and on, or
(c) Exercise the veto, which would cut the American alliance free of the baleful influence of Old Europe, but also thrust it face to face with the loonies of radical Islam and the always-sinister and rapidly developing People's Republic of China - an inevitable confrontation incalculably more expensive later on.
Those consequences range far beyond the immediate issue of how to treat with Iraq's malevolent tyrant. They will cast the mold for the reconfiguration of economic relationships, political alignments and military deployments of world powers for decades to come.This a most-sobering reality. Either way the cat jumps, it constitutes nothing less than the most fundamental upheaval since the onset of the Cold War in the wake of World War II.Nothing like this has come along since the now-defunct Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin gambled on possible nuclear annihilation to subjugate the United States and all it represents.
The Threat Was Well Known
That came at a time when the United States was victorious in World War II and there was widespread appreciation among the American people of the mortal danger the Soviet Union represented.The greatest peril implicit in this present crisis - which neatly fits the Japanese dual ideogram for danger combined with opportunity - is that millions of Americans still don't get it.Much of that disconnect from reality can be laid at the door of American elitist, leftist mass communications and eight years of unethical leadership and neglect by the Clinton administration that those media so gleefully celebrated - and now so vengefully mourn.
Blind Self-AbsorptionA staggering number of Americans remain, even post-Sept. 11, in a combination state of denial of the horrific danger pressing upon them and smug preoccupation with personal pleasures and distractions.That is many times more unsettling than whether the latest surveys of opinions purport to show that most of the rest of the world's population is not on America's side in this time of peril.The courageous leadership of Bush and Blair, who have not allowed opinion polls to blind their perception of their duty, will go down in history alongside that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Train Wreck AheadSo what happens if, as seems likely, the two headlong opposing resolutions work their way up to a vote in the Security Council after every other U.N. member state has been given face time on world television to do its posturing?Despite strenuous efforts now being made to mush together some sort of face-saving compromise resolution, it seems humanly impossible that, in the end, the two opposing camps can avoid having to split. Each side has gone too far to double back on itself.As Bush has promised, should the Security Council chicken out on its responsibility, the United States will lead a Coalition of the Willing - impressive in number and strength - to liberate the people of Iraq and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Taking the Time to Ramp UpAny passage of days between now and then will be occasioned not by the grant of more time for U.N. inspectors but by the arrival on station of that fourth U.S. carrier battle group and the ominous thud of the final platoon's boots hitting the ground.At that point, there goes the United Nations. Why is that?The answer lies in the history behind the founding of the United Nations as World War II was coming to a close.That awful conflict was won by the wartime unity of the Big Three - as Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States were known then. The concept was that post-war peace could be maintained only if the Big Three remained in effective unanimity.
Antiquated VetoThe veto was grafted into the U.N. Charter to make that _expression of Big Three unity possible, by ensuring the impotence of the United Nations if any one of the Big Three was willing to precipitate its collapse through exercise of the veto.That made sense only if Big Three unity persisted, which of course it didn't. Even before World War II ended, even before the United Nations came into being, Big Three unity was falling apart.In actuality, the United Nations as an effective instrument of international cooperation and peacekeeping was stillborn.
Disunited From the Get-GoWhat did emerge and has hung on by a thread ever since is not a United Nations, but a hopelessly Disunited Nations - as illustrated by the numerous vetoes cast by the Soviet Union.An effective, relevant United Nations has been flat-line brain-dead these nearly 60 years, and what the world is now witnessing are the terminal twitchings of its prolonged state of artificially suspended animation.The very idea of the United States, or any country, thinking it had to go to such a United Nations with hat in hand and obtain approval to do what has to be done to protect its own people's vital national interests has been a dirty joke all these long years.So now, in the impending Shootout at the East River Glass Corral, two principals on the misnamed Security Council are about to fire veto bullets at each other. The current world economic, political and military realities are such that America and its allies will win that duel.
A Demise to CelebrateThe United States and the United Kingdom will walk away. France and Germany will not perish, although they will be grievously wounded, lingering as cripples for generations.But lying lifeless on New York's East Side, in form as well as in substance, will be what once had the presumption to call itself the United Nations.No need for grieving over that. The Free World will be the better for it.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents.
The UN is Communist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/763809/posts Flower Child Fascism
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ac3d9b55fec.htm The UN Plan For Your Mental Health
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/MentalHealth2-99.html The UN's Global Malfeasance
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/deweese/20030219.htm Kofi Anan, Bigot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801874/posts UNICEF
United Nations International Children's Fund
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/index.html List of Communist Organizations Operating in US.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828445/posts Let's Quit the UN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837196/posts UNICEF and Halloween--Vatican Halts Payment
http://www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn25.htm UN charter deserves the dustbin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710421/posts Ushering One-World Religion, CBN News
http://www.cbn.org/cbnnews%2Fnews%2F021023a%2Easp Child Sex Book Given out at UN Summit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/681145/posts What's UNESCO Good For?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/754948/posts Who Created the United Nations? Communists!
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a00f5fb38b0.htm New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743512/posts United Nations-Sustainable Development
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm A U.S. Senator Rebukes the U.N. - WHY?
http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jun00/helms.htm Erasing Our Boarders
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/671826/posts A Choronological History of the New World Order
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2aa8747413.htm "STATE OF THE WORLD FORUM" TO ADVANCE "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE" FOR EVERYONE
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3991067719db.htm Bilderberg group wants vigorous Atlantic alliance / REUTERS IN A RARE INTERVIEW
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b11d27a10c5.htm Deliberately dumbing us down (Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3846d8ab444a.htm History of the New World Order in the 20th Century
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a999294ef9.htm Info on the FED - Rockefeller Shadow Government
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3806a2f37c94.htm MASTERLINK TO FREE REPUBLIC EDUCATION THREADS (#6)
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a385bf3644986.htm The United Nations Grab for Power
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39cab9547190.htm Who Is Running America?
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392ef408565b.htm POPE COULD FACE CHARGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/02021201.html RADICAL FEMINISTS LAUD INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00030905.html PLANNED PARENTHOOD SAYS POPE GUILTY OF "WAR" AGAINST WOMEN
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jun/00063005.html Global Criminal Court Starts March 14, 2003
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030311/80/dv535.html Deconstructing the Western Mind: Gramscian-Marxist Subversion of Faith and Education
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b555c262d74.htm Current Communist Goals
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a2d1c346bcc.htm The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/10Planks.html Communists Should Not Teach In American Colleges - 1949
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a392de9c32cf2.htm Black Book of Communism:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674076087/qid%3D994278655/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsc%5Fb%5F1/002-0315393-0042477 The Socialist Will to Power - from About Socialism and Socialists
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a238718.htm Did Communists Infiltrate the Catholic Church?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722955/posts "The National United Nations-free Zone Committee"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/un_freezone.htm The truth about the United Nations!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/un.htm CHRISTIANITY UNDER SIEGE, TOWARD A ONE WORLD RELIGION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/christianity.htm The New International Criminal Court
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/international.htm Al Gore - FOR a One World Church and UN Dictatorship
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/dictatorship.htm THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WCC.htm The slide into dictatorship
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/dictatorship2.htm United Nations Children's Fund Seeks to Usurp Parental Rights
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/children.htm The Adams County Patriot's League: Parental Rights in America
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/viar.htm The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm Government has its eye on your money !
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gov_eye.htm GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/global_governance.htm The United Nations plans to CONFISCATE your profit and ---.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/united_nations.htm
20
posted on
03/20/2003 10:19:01 PM PST
by
Coleus
(RU-486 Kills Babies)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson