It's time the United States considers quitting the United Nations. In the past, only the right-wing fringe argued for pulling out of the U.N., which, after all, was created in 1945, not only with the United States' blessing, but largely at our urging.
In the nearly 58 years since, the U.N. has had, at best, a mixed role in preventing and resolving conflict. More often it has served as a debating society, whose member states were as likely to ignore as to adhere to the very covenants, declarations and resolutions they voted to adopt.
I say this as someone who has observed the workings of the United Nations firsthand. From 1992-1996, I served as the U.S. expert to the U.N. human-rights subcommission, a position to which the U.N. Human Rights Commission elected me. Each August for four years, I traveled to Geneva to participate as a voting member of the subcommission, whose role it was to hear testimony concerning human-rights violations around the world.
Though we rarely were able to reach consensus about grotesque violations in countries such as China or Cuba, my fellow subcommission members had no trouble condemning the United States for its alleged transgressions, especially our supposed racism. Among the 18 subcommission members, only the British, Ukrainian and Belgian representatives were stalwart friends. Even the Belgian representative reflected his personal rather than his government's views, which he was entitled to do since each of us was supposed to act as "independent" experts. The French delegate was viscerally hostile to anything American; the Norwegian was sanctimonious; the Latin Americans were usually cowardly; the Africans, East Europeans and Arabs, frequently duplicitous.
Nothing about the recent U.N. back-stabbing over Iraq has surprised me. The real question is why we put up with it. What exactly has the United Nations accomplished in recent years that we could not have done on our own? The Gulf war, though sanctioned by the U.N., was almost entirely an American effort, with the usual help from the Brits and a handful of other nations. The U.N. has failed miserably in preventing horrific mass murder in Rwanda, the Balkans and Cambodia. It has been totally ineffective in promoting peace in the Middle East, engaging in vicious slurs against Israel while coddling thugs like Yasser Arafat. It has been unable to prevent terrorism anywhere.
Meanwhile, the United States is expected to bear a ridiculous share of the cost of operating the United Nations. The U.N. assesses dues based on the member country's relative share of the world's economy. Since the U.S. economy represents about a quarter of the world's economy, we're expected to pay 25 percent of the costs of running the bloated, frequently corrupt U.N. bureaucracy. We're also expected to share an even greater burden of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. The United States' failure to pay its full dues — we've been as much as a half billion dollars behind in recent years — causes much consternation among elite opinion leaders here and abroad.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, American Enterprise Institute scholar Joshua Muravchik argued that France's veto threat actually rescued the United States from a serious blunder, namely creating "a presumption that Security Council approval is the necessary prerequisite for the use of American force abroad," which he claimed "would have posed incalculable dangers to world peace in the long term."
Mr. Muravchik is right. The best way to be sure we are never tempted to do so in the future would be to withdraw our support altogether. If we are not prepared to do that, we could at least continue to withhold payments, give our excellent Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte a new job befitting his talents, and downgrade our representation and participation in this feckless institution. Pretending that the United Nations is worthy of our unqualified support is not in our nation's best interest.
posted on March 22, 2003 05:22:43 AM new
If it were put to a vote of the American people, I'd vote for the US to leave the UN, ask that it be moved to another country. If without our 25% [plus] contributions
it can survive, if without our military force involvement in any of it's enforcements [haha], then so be it.
But as it stands now, I doubt the US will withdraw.
What I hope NEVER happens, is that the world, or any mixture of countries, thinks it EVER will have the 'right' to tell the US to do or not to do anything. I hope I die before our country comes under the 'rule/orders' of world decisions, rather than standing as an independent nation.
posted on March 22, 2003 07:04:00 AM new
Thanks twelvepole - I agree with most things you've posted in these many threads too.
The US fought too hard to gain it's independence. I would NEVER support turning that same freedom over to a world governed body...one where their collective 'vote' would make decisions that would be 'law' for our nation ie: the UN.
posted on March 22, 2003 03:17:43 PM new
Linda, I've thought a lot about this.
I do think it was the right thing to do, going to Iraq.
I do not think the rest of the world (majority) does though.
I have this creepy feeling, (after reading N Koreas statement-'By the U.S. going into Iraq shows the world they are imperialist and will want control of the world' )
We are not conquerers, or occupiers.
This is getting scary, Iraq has called on the UN for the U.S. to be put up on war crimes for attempted assasination of their President. Not to mention what other world leaders say.
This country is young. We have the most UNBELIEVEABLE freedoms, more than any in history, or now.
I about cried, when those idiots in Portland made a bonfire of the US flags. Its ironic, they all rushed out to buy one after 9-11, and then rush out now to burn it in their protest against their own country.
Ever watch the Patriot... the Revolutionary war movie.... the star (though fictional) did not want to particapte in any conflict against England (the first Peace protester?) but in the end, he did, and found it was the only way we would have freedom from an Empire. We would finally be our own country, and a free one.
Our country is young, its been through so many struggles to get where we are today.
I certainly want to keep it. I think others do not.
It really is a sad state. that old saying, and its old and been used so much, but it is true... United we Stand.... divided we fall.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 22, 2003 04:16:06 PM new
NearTheSea - It certainly is very disheartening isn't it? Some would give up the freedom our forefathers fought so hard for, to be governed by the UN. Just keep in mind, they are in the minority.
This is getting scary, Iraq has called on the UN for the U.S. to be put up on war crimes for attempted assasination of their President. Not to mention what other world leaders say. Let them call for it....let them pass it...Who they going to have come get us? France? IMO, this is a BIG power play by the nations that resent our power and are working to protect their financial interests in Iraq. They think if they stick together against us, that we'll cave. I don't picture that happening. That's just one reason I'm glad Bush is in office.
And France's leader is flexing a muscle he doesn't have. But his jaw sure is getting a GREAT workout.
Our military is doing everything they can to prevent any more casualities than absolutely necessary. You've noticed we're continuing to distribute fliers saying if they surrender, they won't be harmed. We bomb then there's a lull for them to think about it again. I think Tommy Franks has made some great choices to this point.
Look at the polls.....the 'silent majority' is coming to life....those who support Bush in this war are increasing by the day. So are those who support Tony Blair too.
I do understand your concerns. {{{NTS}}}
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 22, 2003 04:19 PM ]
posted on March 22, 2003 08:23:04 PM newSomone sent this to me:
An 80 year old Veteran, who was in the Korean War and World War II gave a
little history lesson and his
thoughts today on War. It is a different look at the War.
Thoughts to think about:
........................
I'm not going to get into a history lesson. The short,
short version is that the League of Nations
(established after WW I to prevent wars) failed to
stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering
Ethiopia. It failed to stop Japan from invading and
conquering Manchuria and much of China. Their
committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but
did absolutely nothing to stop war.
At France's coaxing Britain's prime minister Nevil
Chamberlain met with Adolph Hitler in Munich and
surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the
interest of "peace in our time." The French and
British watched as Germany took Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee
meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace.
World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland.
Britain had a mutual defense treaty with Poland so
they couldn't escape. They declared war on Germany.
Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so
Japan declared war on Britain. France wet their pants
and surrendered to Germany as fast as they could and
gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to
death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they
really were on the side of Germany.
Japan attacked the United States and, because of
Japan's mutual defense treaty with Germany, Germany
declared war on the United States.
Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, a large number of our people were wringing
their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler. He is really
a good guy who just needed a little more land for his
expanding population. The dear man just wants peace.
And World War II was in full swing leaving better than
50,000,000 people dead including about 450,000
American soldiers and sailors.
Three cheers for the League of Nations!
After World War II it was decided to do the whole
thing all over again. This time we would call it the
United Nations and we will have committee meetings and
hand wringing parties and make sure peace prevails
throughout the land.
While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union
split Germany, invaded Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania,
Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000
American soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean
soldiers and civilians killed and the country nearly
destroyed.
Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers
killed in Vietnam and have fought wars in Somalia,
Herzegovenia, Panama, Granada,plus the Gulf War when
Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that
evil regime then but the United Nations would have no
part of that. All they would allow was for us to chase
the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail.
Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United
Nations resolutions while he has massed poison gas and
bio weapons.
He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his
buddy, Kim Jong-Il of North Korea may give him a few.
(It was the United Nations who prevented us from
taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the
means to do it.)
Peace!!!!!!!! Sure.
France is wetting their collective pants in fear that
the United States will take Saddam out and along with
him, France's 60 billion dollar contracts with Iraq.
Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars
that they sorely need.
In answer to your question....... hell yes we should
go to war with Iraq. We should have done it six months
ago. We should also get out of the United Nations. Can
you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq
and Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament
Committee? Can you believe they have appointed Libya
to head up the Human Rights Committee?
All three of these countries are on the UN List of
Terrorist States..........Absolutely unbelievable.
Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history
the only time peace has prevailed is when the good
guys have militarily whipped the bad guys. Who are our
best friends in the world? Japan because we whipped
them. Germany because we whipped them. Italy because
we whipped them. Britain because we whipped them.
This is one opinion, on the War but this is the eyes,
ears and heart of an American Veteran...
IMO, this is a BIG power play by the nations that resent our power and are working to protect their financial interests in Iraq. They think if they stick together against us, that we'll cave. I don't picture that happening. That's just one reason I'm glad Bush is in office.
