|Time to declare our independence from the United Nations
By Tom DeWeese
The United Nations is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals. It has Oil for Food scandals. Sex scandals. Power-abuse scandals. Smuggling scandals. Theft scandals. And unpaid traffic tickets. Rob, rape, and pillage seems to be the UN's modus operandi.
Yet why is anyone surprised? The UN considers itself above the law of mere nations. And it answers to no one. There is no vote on UN leaders (other than by the culprits themselves). There is no international referendum on its policies. The UN sets its own standards of conduct and it controls its own judge and jury. These, of course, are the very reasons why many have opposed U.S. membership in the UN. And it's why many have feared the UN gaining any sort of power to gain its own ability to tax, field an army, or create a court system. Possessing these three powers drastically changes the UN from a volunteer membership organization to a global governing body.
Compliant nations simply give the UN a pretense of legitimacy. The United States government plays to the folks at home by talking tough about the need for "UN reform." Yet not once has the Republican-led Administration or the Republican- controlled Congress taken any steps to withhold funds for UN programs. Instead, the U.S. continues to go along with nearly every policy scheme, international conference and peace-keeping mission, paying the majority of the funds, thus supplying huge amounts of tax-payer money to UN coffers so that business as usual goes on down at UN headquarters.
There is one public entity to which the UN at least pretends to react. The court of public opinion. There is a growing awareness, at least in the living rooms of common Americans, that something is very wrong with the UN. The UN's greatest fear is that those Americans might influence our leaders to withdraw from the world body. If that ever happens, then the UN is finished and it knows it.
Articles are surfacing and pundits are pondering, questioning the future of the UN. To sidestep the obvious that the UN has utterly failed in its stated mission to promote world peace, or to even have a hint of influence in making anyone's life better voices are beginning to suggest the word "reform." Reform the UN, make it more "workable." American leaders, looking for a way to get around the growing argument to dump the UN may latch on to such a reform movement. But they should be careful what they wish for because they may not get the kind of reform they are expecting.
The UN is never without a contingency plan for its well-prepared agenda of global governance. A major thorn in the side of those who seek to drive the UN into a position of international power is the Security Council and the veto power of its permanent members. Many say the United States controls the UN with its veto power. Solution: take it away.
One of the twelve points of the Charter for Global Democracy, which surfaced prior to the UN's Millennium Summit in 2000, was a plan to "reform" the UN by doing away with the Security Council and replacing it with an "Assembly of the People." The Assembly would be made up of "people from the world" in the form of non-elected, non-governmental organizations (NGO's). Take note, these are the same NGO's which write the background material for most of the UN treaties like Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, Rights of the Child, and even the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. NGOs are special interest groups (almost all leftist) who are seeking to create the UN as a global government. They are the ones pushing for UN tax schemes, standing armies, and the International Criminal Court. While the average citizen focuses on the Security Council and its dramatic, even heroic image, NGOs have become the driving force in setting UN policy.
To them it would be a dream come true for the UN to scrap the Security Council, which still pretends to be a place where nations simply air their differences. They would then be free to install the Assembly of the People through which their drive for UN power could accelerate unabated by pesky U.S. vetoes.
The first great challenge to the UN's ability to provide peace was the Korean conflict in 1954. Allowed to operate on its own, the United States would have waged war against this aggressor and eliminated the communist regime and its threat forever. However, because American leadership abided by United Nations diplomatic authority instead of reason, not only was the regime allowed to survive, the conflict was never resolved. Indeed the North Korean communists' greatest ally, Red China, was also allowed to take root and grow. As a result of that UN failure, today, both North Korea and communist China are two of the leading international threats to peace. These are festering sores that the United States will eventually have to deal with, most certainly over UN objections.
Almost the exact scenario was played out in the Vietnam conflict in the 1960's as UN resolutions tied American hands from destroying the communists, allowing another brutal regime to remain in power, again within the axis of China.
Today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the international community is a dangerous place. Instead of peaceful, prosperous, stable trading partners, the world is full of brutal, murdering dictatorships which starve and torture their own people while threatening the security of their neighbors, as once-great powers cower and use diplomatic doublespeak to ignore responsibility. Most of these international thugs have two things in common. 1) Each has a voice and a vote in the United Nations. 2) None would be a threat if they didn't.
The United Nations has come under the control of outlaw nations, petty and tarnished former superpowers and self-ordained special interest groups. Each promotes a socialist agenda that seeks to redistribute the world's wealth into their own coffers as they diminish the power of the United States and enslave the citizens of nations in a dark ages of poverty and misery.
That's why terrorist states like Libya and Syria are allowed to serve on the UN's Human Rights Commission as Israel is condemned in resolution after resolution. It's the reason why a prosperous, industrious nation like Taiwan is refused membership in the UN while a murderous thug like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe is given a prominent voice at UN conferences.
The United Nations is not "dysfunctional," as some "reformists" have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate, let alone perpetuate.
Many of our elected officials indicate that the United States is bound to some kind of forced membership in the UN, as if it's our legal duty. Congress has resisted Congressman Ron Paul's efforts to pass his "American Sovereignty Restoration Act" (H.R. 1146), which calls for the complete withdraw of the United States from UN membership. Critics say it just isn't reasonable in today's society. They say that the United States would become isolated from the rest of the world. They say that the United States is bound by a treaty to stay in the UN.
But according to legal and Constitution scholar, Herb Titus, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States or the American people. Says Titus, "The Charter of the UN is commonly assumed to be a treaty. It is not." Instead, Titus explains, the UN Charter is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' government officials, which have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation's to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.
Titus goes on to explain: "Even if the Charter of the UN were a properly-ratified treaty, it would still be constitutionally illegitimate and void because it transgresses the Constitution of the United States in three major respects: 1) It unconstitutionally delegates to the UN the U.S. Congress' legislative powers to initiate war and the U.S. president's executive power to conduct war; 2) It unconstitutionally transfers to the United Nations General Assembly the US House of Representatives' exclusive power to originate revenue-raising measures; and 3) It unconstitutionally robs the 50 American states powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Titus declares that H.R.1146 is the only viable solution to the continuing abuses by the United Nations. He says, "The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional actions of embracing the UN Charter by enacting H.R. 1146."
The world of the UN is like a parallel reality. It is no place for a nation born from the minds of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. How would today's American leaders in Congress react if they were suddenly brought before a tribunal of Founding Fathers and told to justify American participation in such a folly?
Rather than wasting more time and money on hearings and debates over a new UN Ambassador, the Congress would better use its resources to simply ignore the UN and quit. It is past time for the American people to demand action of our elected officials to uphold the U.S. Constitution they have sworn to defend. Just as our Founding Fathers did when confronted with tyranny, it's time that the American people declare their independence from the United Nations.
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains a website at www.americanpolicy.org. © Tom DeWeese 2005
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
This week's poll
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.