The UN Works For US
by James Hall, from the Left
After two major World Wars in thirty years, the world got smart and created the United Nations, and Americans were crucial
to its creation. We established the United Nations to maintain world peace, mediate international conflict, establish and
support human rights around the world, and to assist those suffering from war, poverty, and natural disasters. The UN has
succeeded in all these areas. It would a huge mistake for us to leave it simply because we don't agree with each decision
made there, or to assuage the irrational paranoia of those who fear any international influence on America.
began with negotiations between the American, British, and Soviet allies at the close of the Second World War to provide a
better forum for dealing with international tensions than continued war or the threat of war. Before the UN there was little
universally accepted law other than the law of the jungle, with strong nations terrorizing weak nations and fighting among
themselves. Some people argued for a better way, like the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in a treatise called _Perpetual
Peace_ (1795) advocated associations of nations to create a law of nations rather than continue to live under Dawin's law.
Without international law, international problems can only be resolved by force, threat of force, or individual treaty.
Shall we proceed to use military force each time we have an international disagreement, or perhaps instead negotiate and
sign 185 individual treaties (for each nation now in the UN) on every issue from travel visas to borders to economics to crime
to military cooperation to trade to currency exchange and more? Will we accept the necessity of going to war every few years
or so to enforce our agreements, coerce an opponent, or support a beleaguered friend?
No. It's far more wise for
us to remain in the UN and use our vast influence there to write good international laws, support human rights, and minimize
any conflicts that might draw American soldiers into war.
Not only would it be unwise for the US to leave the UN,
it would be simply stupid for the US to give up its permanent seat with veto-power on the UN Security Council, the most powerful
body of the United Nations, which decides on peacekeeping, enforces the General Assembly's resolutions, and approves new members
of the General Assembly. The Soviets once stomped out of a Security Council meeting only to find that the Council had approved
a military operation against North Korea, its client state, beginning the Korean War. If we withdraw, expect similar mischief
to be perpetuated against the US, its interests, and its friends.
If there are problems with the UN to be worked
out, like its bloated bureaucracy, or its difficulty in reaching a consensus, these are best worked out from within the organization,
not as an outsider. The current Bush administration, which broadcast its desire during the campaign to act unilaterally and
minimize its involvement in the UN, was then rocked by losses of important seats on the UN Civil Rights Commission and on
a committee that monitors international drug trafficking, both committees that the US originated and steered.
loss of these seats should warn us that there are those who would be quite happy to see America leave the UN, freeing them
to work their will on us and our friends, backed by the rest of the world. Outside the UN we would have little or no influence
on new international laws and regulations that might influence our trade and actions with the rest of the world. We would
experience a direct loss of US power to influence the rest of the world and command its ideological high ground.
than ever before, we are a part of that world. Americans constantly travel and do business abroad, our store shelves are
lined with foreign goods, our economy depends largely on foreign trade. Few nations have historically withdrawn from the
world's stage, but those that have, like Japan in the 16th century and China in the 19th century have gotten rude awakenings
when a more powerful world again came calling.
Americans cannot afford to make that mistake. We need the UN as much
as the UN needs us. Maybe more, for we are country built on laws and dedicated to the individual's peaceful transaction of
his or her own business. These are values that the world needs, and we need the world to have them. We can best advocate
them from a position of strength within the UN, not from weakness without.
It's difficult to come to grips with James' arguments against the UN--mostly because there's nothing to grab ahold of. We
are told that the UN is opposed to our own Bill of Rights when the UN Charter states that the encouragement of those rights
is a top priority, and America herself sponsored, established, and guides the UN's Commission on Civil Rights. The UN Declaration
of Human Rights enshrines those these very concepts in international law.
James tells us that the UN tramples on
national sovereignty (another claim for which there is no proof offered), and yet the UN's very creation was based on the
principles of the Atlantic Charter (1942) created by the Allies, which denies the validity of war as a tool of statecraft,
advocates complete freedom of the seas, the freedom of nations to trade and of each nation's right of self-determination as
its bedrock principles. These principles are enshrined in the United Nations Declaration agreed to in San Francisco in 1945.
James calls the UN "tyrannical" but the UN is completely dependent on its constituent states for its finances
and the very limited ability to work as the world's policeman. It cannot act without the agreement of the General Assembly
and the authorization of the Security Council, and it maintains no troops or weapons of its own but relies on the military
power of its member states. As the recent trial of Libyans accused of terrorism in Lockerby, Scotland has made clear, it
cannot even bring individuals to trial without the cooperation of all the nation-states involved. Its primary tools are negotiation
and treaties, its chief weapons economic embargo, its principle enforcers international peacekeepers who are national soldiers
first, UN policemen second. Hardly a picture of tyranny.
Indeed, James' vision of the UN is based on fear and fancy,
not facts. Even stalwart critics of the UN's bloated bureacracy like Jesse Helms, who recently visited the General Assembly,
recognize its usefulness for America. The United Nations has done a good job accomplishing its original goals of maintaining
world peace, encouraging friendly relations between sovereign governments, and encouraging respect for human rights. It is
an organization that America worked hard to establish, and one that would be foolish to leave now.
James, From the
The U.N. vs The U.S.
"they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation; neither shall they learn war any more" - Isaiah
'will never be more than an ideal for humanity. If, in our service as United Nations peacekeepers, we can help make that ideal
more true than false, more promising than distant, more able to protect the innocent than embolden the guilty, we will have
done our part.'
These words from a 6 October 1998 UN Press Release, set the tone for the inevitable failure of this
organization. If the ideal is acknowledged as impossible to attain, the intent or motive to reach it is not paramount. The
actual result of those efforts and their tangible consequences, are the basis upon which we must judge its value or harm.
The U.N. as a precursor for world organization, has been its fundamental purpose from the outset. Debate and diplomacy are
secondary pursuits. The underlying supposition for this confederation is establishing a quasi legal justification for using
force to compel dissenting nations into accepting the will of the 'International Community'.
Central to this discussion
is the concept of national sovereignty. Those who desire to limit, restrict and diminish the independence of nations, are
enthusiastic proponents of this 'New World Order'. The scale and magnitude of this primary conflict cannot be dismissed. A
country has a right or it doesn't. Natural law towards nations is the same canon that it is towards individuals. If sovereignty
is denied among nations, 'all things are possible'. Countries can and do, at times, relinquish portions of their self-rule.
Policy considerations may be seen as beneficial in so doing, but to intimate that temporary subordination, voids the absolute
authority for autonomy, is at the core of this dispute.
The United States retains her primacy, as a sovereign nation,
while being a member of the U.N. The criteria for continued involvement needs to provide advantage for our country. Seldom
will the defenders for international assembly develop a case for benefit to individual nations. The U.S. is told that her
responsibility demands that she provide leadership as the great super power, while accepting diminished liberty for her citizens.
All in the interest of world harmony.
Peace is not the supreme goal; LIBERTY is the purpose. Peace under the rule
of a tyrant is still slavery. And when that tyrant takes the guise of a world organization, who has the intent to impose the
elite's view of the 'collective will' upon all mankind, you have the makings of perpetual war.
The extent of this
peril is best illustrated by the proposed 0.1 percent global tax on international currency transactions, that would be levied
in collaboration with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. Another massive tax
called the "Tobin Tax" has been suggested that would assess a fee on every international financial transaction.
This one tax would generate an estimated $1.5 trillion for UN coffers. These methods of funding would finance the enforcement
arm of world government and every other scheme that intends to manage the environment, world trade, international courts and
social policy. This is the horror record. The future is looking you directly in your face and most refuse to recognize that
you are becoming mere chattel to a new overseer.
The U.S. is viewed as the great Satan within the ranks of the assembly.
Proposals to eliminate the Security Council veto and shift power to the Assembly can only grow in support. The question for
humanist seeking a world paradise ruled by the 'International Community' is: " What make you think that any form of 'collectivism'
will enhance the human condition? " Every attempt throughout all of history has failed miserably. Organized coercion
based upon forced peace empowers the elite, while subjugating the rest; all in the name of the children.
charity relief, cultural understanding and prudent stewardship of resources can be achieved without the rule of a despot.
Dialogue and discourse should be promoted, but acquiescence to foreign mandates without even the fig leaf of national representation
is insane. Why would any intelligent person fall for this fraud? Are you so insecure in your own condition that your guilt
drives you to willingly disrespect yourself by forfeiting your own rights. This is a sickness that spreads a malaise that
engulfs entire nations. Before you rush to surrender your birth right, travel the world. Visit and experience the Third World
and ponder your responsibility in bring it upon your children.
America is being systemically dismantled by the forces
that wear the 'blue helmet'. Their goal is your capitulation. They have proven to be the enemy of the Republic. Now why don't
you see that they are your foe, as well?
Until this antagonist is defeated, our swords are needed; and our continual
vigilance, is required. They will only be able to be discarded, when the only true sovereign rules. The U.N. is the worst
beast yet devised. Anyone who understands what America represents would know this fact. Those who protect enemies of our Nation
are adversaries of mine. This is the clearest choice you can possibly make. Heed your decision well, no blue beret wearer
can be called American, while selling out to a foreign master. Peace under those conditions is unacceptable. Isaiah knew the
difference, then why don't you?
James Hall aka SARTRE
Just amazing that Kant is cited when the benefits of his most famous work, Critique of Reason, is conveniently absent! Offering
false choices is specious at best and frequently disingenuous by design. International law existed prior to the U.N. and certainly
would retain its merit, whether this junta of thugs convenes or disbands. A working knowledge of history is just as absent
as logical synthesis, when a false dialectic is presented for an argument. If the difference between conducting affairs among
nations under lawful agreement and the establishment of a world body with the intent to RULE over member nations, is not grasped;
how can we respect the substance of further reasoning? Tortured logic does not build understanding. Explain Kant's following
points from Perpetual Peace: "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State"
and "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality". Not exactly the method
of intent or mandates that the U.N. promote, now is it?
No one seeks to withdraw from the REAL World. But the capitulation
of national sovereignty and the surrender of Bill of Right Constitutional protections, as the price of membership in a brotherhood
of utopian plutocrats is psychotic. The premise of the purported authority of the organization is suspect and false. The litany
of treaties that violate our own laws seem not to concern you! The horrors of U.N. intervention in the name of peace breeds
contempt and scorn from those who have suffered under the yoke of the 'International Community'.
Any discussion about
reform or improvements within the structure of the organization is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This ship
needs to be sunk . . . If you understood the meaning of America laws, you could never willingly discard them and accept a
substitution of administrated dictates imposed upon our own government. Just a fine example of representative governance!
Remember another one of those Kantian elements: "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican" ?
Or would you conveniently like to ignore that one too?
Is your duty to America or to this New World Order? This is
the correct either or question, not the false one you posed. The U.S. needs a firm America First foreign policy and should
enter into beneficial engagement when and only where it furthers the interests of her People. If you seek to express your
allegiance as a world citizen, be my guest. But you become an enemy of America when support is given to actions that destroy
her independence and sovereignty. Internationalists are betrayers when they sell out America. Patriots pursue commerce when
it enriches our Nation. Globalist seek to govern over us and the destruction of our Republic. Why is that so difficult to
accept? The record of the U.N. is that of a belligerent against the interests of the average American citizen.
promise of world peace has turned into the threat of forcible imposition. The notion of good international laws has manifested
itself as a continued loss of individual Liberty. And purported support for human rights has been a nightmare for those who
are in the greatest need. The U.N. is a RICO criminal if there ever was one. But why would you embrace this conclusion, you
still think the U.N. has worthy accomplishments? Another judgment, on par with your logic . . .
James Hall - 'The