Entry: United Nations: Mend It or End It Sunday, September 24, 2006



The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators?

Recent speeches given by world leaders at the UN have brought the problems plaguing that organisation into sharp focus. The President of the United States made a speech about spreading freedom, democracy, human rights and reform, and received some polite applause. A Communist dictator from Venezuela and the mouthpiece of the Islamofascist theocrats who rule Iran made speeches attacking America, accusing our country and our President of horrible crimes, and received ovations.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions," President Bush told the assembled delegates. "But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world." Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" during his own speech, ostentatiously crossing himself, and complained that "it smells of sulfur still today."  Ahmadinejad of Iran ended his speech with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam, asking that Allah "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause." (Imagine the furor that would have erupted had President Bush ended his speech by praying for the Rapture and asking that God make everyone a Christian.)

Every year, thousands of lives are lost to the UN's corruption and vacillation, and untold numbers of crimes, large and small, are committed by its representatives. I'm not just talking about the reams of unpaid parking tickets issued annually by the NYC police, either. More than 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu died in Rwanda in 1994 while UN troops watched, prevented from acting by layers of bureacracy and a divided Security Council. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs in Srebrenica while UN observers, well, observed. More recently, UN peacekeepers watched as Hizballah terrorists launched rockets attacks against Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even reporting that Hizballah "fired from the vicinity of five UN positions" in July 2006. Indeed, the UN's legacy of inaction is exceeded in criminality only by its actions.

After President Clinton brought NATO in to stop the slaughter in the Balkans, the region was turned over to the UN, by whom it is mismanaged to this day. UN peacekepers ran forced prostitution rings in Bosnia and Kosovo until turned in by an American worker. UN peacekeepers have been involved in rape, slavery, child prostitution, black marketeering, bribery and food-for-sex scandals from East Timor to West Africa. In the biggest disgrace in history, France, Russia and China used their votes on the Security Council to prevent action against Saddam Hussein in order to protect oil contracts they had made with his regime while he brutalised the Iraqi people. Prominent and influential people in those countries and many more took bribes from Saddam to use their influence on his behalf. The scandal reached all the way up to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.The largest criminal organisation in history -- that's what our tax dollars are funding.

Right now, genocidal attacks are taking place against blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan, carried out by the Arab Janjaweed militias, while the UN passes resolutions "deploring" the slaughter but doing nothing to stop it. Sudan, coincidentally, is a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission, along with Cuba, Libya and China. Iran has defied repeated UN demands to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons, while Russia and China -- again protecting their business partner, as they did Iraq -- block the Security Council from recommending even the weakest sanctions. Iran, again coincidentally, is vice-Chair of the Disarmament Commission. After ten years of trying, the UN is still unable to write a resolution condemning terrorism, for fear of offending terror-supporting member states. In fact, the United Nations is unable to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose, which -- as written into its charter -- was "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The problem stems from the UN's insistence on treating all member states the same, regardless of their record on human rights, terrorism, war or democracy. It is long past time for us to either change the United Nations or disband it in favor of a more effective council of nations. Either way, nations who do not practice democracy within their own borders should not be allowed to cast votes on any international actions. Pretending that delegates of governments that do not represent their people somehow speak for those people is a joke. Nations under any kind of censure for disarmament or human rights abuses should not be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, those commissions.

As long as we continue to pretend that the United Nations is what it should be, rather than what it is, we have no hope of reforming it. It's time to look at the UN's problems honestly and work to fix them, or else halt its funding and remove its headquarters from our soil.

   20 comments

Thor H. Asgardson
September 24, 2006   05:03 PM PDT
 
This is an excellent synopsis of why the U.N. is irrelevant to the advancement of American interests, and global peace.
Perhaps we should "downsize" and outsource this drain on our national life. The journey of a thousand miles, begins with the first step, and getting rid of the U.N. will go a long way toward ending the globalization, which threatens our national interest.
Gull
September 24, 2006   09:10 PM PDT
 
Excellent post --- succinct and definitely on target.

If only Condi Rice will be allowed to say the same thing to the Security Council and Kofi Annan, giving them the option of mending or ending the UN's free-loading on our goodwill.

Big Fat Lobster
September 25, 2006   09:17 AM PDT
 
You may or may not know, but tomorrow morning the tenure of Japanese Prime Minister Junichirou Koizumi ends and a new PM Shinzo Abe will take over.

Abe is a closet nationalist and staunch Japanese conservative who wants to amend Japan's constitution to allow military manuevers and legalize the existing Japanese defense force. One of the issues that will undoubtedly come up in the next year or so is the UN's repeated insistence that despite that fact that Japan is the #2 funding source of the UN, the Chinese in particular repeatedly veto any act to promote Japan to the UN permanent security council.

Koizumi threatened, twice if I'm not mistaken, to pull Japan's funding to the UN by nearly 90%. Abe may very well follow up on that threat -- and if he does it will be a massive blow to the UN's credibility and resource pool.

Abe has already stated that he believes Japan needs to strengthen its relationship to the USA, and that may very well be a prelude to withdrawing tremendous portions of their UN funding and redirecting that energy and money to exerting Japan's economic influence through the US political and military engine.

Time will tell, but I suspect the rising PM is a bolder man than many suspect -- and following on Koizumi's legacy of reform, Abe will need to really stir the pot to avoid becoming another PM Mori.
Jim
September 25, 2006   10:36 AM PDT
 
Forgive my naivete, but just how do us average citizens go about getting our government to pull out? I hear and read so much from <a href="http://mauriceenchelthot.blogspot.com/2006/09/one-world-socialism-equals-tyranny.html">excellent blogs</a> like yours about pulling out, but nobody is really organizing on it.
CavalierX
September 26, 2006   05:27 AM PDT
 
The best thing you can do, really, is write your Senators and Representative, and do what you can to help elect some who won't kowtow to the UN. There are sites like http://www.getusout.org/ that have more information and organisational materials.
CavalierX
September 26, 2006   05:35 AM PDT
 
>despite that fact that Japan is the
>#2 funding source of the UN, the
>Chinese in particular repeatedly
>veto any act to promote Japan to
>the UN permanent security council.

I hope that the Japanese DO pull their funding. There's no reason they should be excluded. If they do, it might be easier to convince Congress to pull ours. Plus, the frothing anti-Japanese editorials in the NY Times ought to be entertaining.
Big Fat Lobster
September 26, 2006   09:50 AM PDT
 
"I hope that the Japanese DO pull their funding. There's no reason they should be excluded. If they do, it might be easier to convince Congress to pull ours. Plus, the frothing anti-Japanese editorials in the NY Times ought to be entertaining."

They'd probably accuse Abe of re-aligning the stars or some other nonsense. But I am entirely in agreement -- when Japan provides 22% of UN funding, it is silly to grant China - who is guilty of chronic humans rights violations and sketchy policies a permanent council seat and deny Japan that right -- especially when China pays less than 5% of the UN's budget.

The question is whether Shinzo Abe will have the nuts to stand up to the UN like that, and there isn't any reason why Japan should continue to tolerate such a marginalization of their influence. Abe may attempt first to improve Japan's relations with China in hopes that China will stop vetoing their application to the UN -- but as a traditionalist I find it unlikely that Abe will be willing to take up the ass from China to mend the international relations.
Denny
September 27, 2006   05:43 AM PDT
 
The UN (Under Nemesis) is a pro-Arab, anti-Israeli, anti-American cabal of malevolent state malefactors bent upon establishing a world hegemony of socialism-along with the carnage that ALWAYS follows socialism's tenents. Other than that it is a fine forum for thugs, crooks and murderous dictators. Nuff sed.
Paladin
September 28, 2006   06:22 PM PDT
 
i say we tell all the "losers" that are in the U.N that there is an anti american meeting and they need to be there but keep all our friends out of it. THEN either take them all and show them the door in a very not nice way and tell them they're no longer welcome here and they need to find a diffrent country to support thier hate. Then we could start a new and better group that will actually work to better the world.
Maureen
September 28, 2006   11:00 PM PDT
 
What is it really that we gain for being in the UN?? Just to be in it? It seems to me that we are trying to play nice with the enemy. This is not the enemy that we are used to, we should NOT be a part of the UN, we as Americans stand alone in what we beleive, with very few exceptions. This group is not for us, it's time to break our ties and regain some of the most sought after property in the world.

Time to boot these bastards out of or politics and out of the greatist city in the world. They don't belong here.
Jimbob
September 29, 2006   06:05 AM PDT
 
As ever, the views put forward help explain why America, though not the Americans, are hated all over the world.

CavalierX: I am moved by your attempt to correct the President's yummy new catchphrase, 'Islamofascists' by adding the world 'theocrats' to it. Despite your blind devotion to the neocons (who are about as close to fascism as you can get in a democratic society), I had noted from prior posts that you, to a certain extent, did respect language and the meaning of words (unlike dubya).

Keep up the good work.
Jimbob
September 29, 2006   06:19 AM PDT
 
Oh, and please try and remember that people who are elected into office through democratic vote are not dictators. I know it's a bit confusing when a country has an outspoken leader you do not like, and is almost your neighbor. you must feel terribly vulnerable. Perhaps Venezuela and her people should be next to be added to the list of liberated peoples.
And don't be surprised that when a man speaks of peace while waging war he doesn't get a standing ovation. Not everyone in the UN is a yesman, corrupt to the core.
CavalierX
September 29, 2006   06:23 AM PDT
 
Nice try, Jimbob, but I've been referring to our terrorist enemies and their supporters as "Islamofascists" and the Iranian government as "theocrats" for years, since that's exactly what they are. It's too bad you don't seem to know what fascism actually means, but only wish to use the word to attack those with whom you disagree like a good little Liberal. And if you think being loved by dictators and admired by appeasers should be our goal, you don't know much about America, either.
CavalierX
September 29, 2006   06:28 AM PDT
 
>Oh, and please try and remember
>that people who are elected into
>office through democratic vote
>are not dictators.

I'll bet you really think Saddam got 99.4% of the vote, don't you? If you think Chavez won an honest election, than I truly feel sorry for you.

>And don't be surprised that when
>a man speaks of peace while
>waging war he doesn't get a
>standing ovation.

But he did. You were referring to Ahmadinejad, were you not? The leader of the government that supports the terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children all over the world in their quest to enslave it?

>Not everyone in the UN is a
>yesman, corrupt to the core.

True. There's John Bolton and Dan Gillerman.
Jimbob
September 29, 2006   10:02 AM PDT
 
I have seen no mention that chavez didn't win an honest election - if there is, please link me up to it. And you gotta admit he is amusing to watch on telly... And he doesn't seem to be too much of a threat to anyone, though I may be wrong - after all, Cuba and El Salvador were a terrible threat too.

Your comment that the only people who are honest in the UN are American and Israeli seems vaguely reminiscent of an "you are either with us or against us" situation - which is a blunt and simplistic viewpoint, I'm afraid - and perhaps a tiny bit negative. To say that these peoples, who have a different stand to ours and look for alternative means of solving problems, are all corrupt, is to go just a bit far (in my most humble opinion). By the way, I'm disappointed you left out the brits, I thought they were on our side too.

As to the meaning of fascism, the word has suffered a lot of changes and the meaning starts to be lost through overuse in general and wrong usage in particular (my thanks to the President for helping). As I see it, it is similar to corporativism, under non-democratic rule, usually dictatorial, but the exact meaning is hard to pinpoint. I do stand by my statement that the neocons, despite their origins, have been tending towards a system that has several similarities with corporativism and thus fascism. It doesn't mean you can't like it if you want to. I'm just saying what it looks like, not whether it's good or bad - I was objecting to a "the pot calling the kettle black" situation. I prefer to try not to use cheap tricks to inflate opinion and to trigger emotions(underlike dubya).
CavalierX
September 29, 2006   11:33 AM PDT
 
>I have seen no mention that
>chavez didn't win an honest
>election - if there is, please link
>me up to it.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559

Before the election, Chavez suddenly granted voting rights to hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants, while withdrawing voting rights from Venezuelans living abroad. During the election, pro-Chavez groups patrolled the polling places assaulting members of the opposition party. After the election, the paper ballots were kept by the military, which is pro-Chavez, for several days before being counted. Look around the rest of the site while you're there. And even if he had won legitimately, he is running an authoritarian regime, which is never legitimate.

>the only people who are honest in
>the UN are American and Israeli

No, they're two of the very few "non-yes-men." You could add others to that list, but none are as outspoken and bluntly honest as Bolton and Gillerman.

>"you are either with us or against
>us" situation - which is a blunt and
>simplistic viewpoint, I'm afraid

You should be afraid, if you're against us.

>As to the meaning of fascism

It's a form of collectivism, as are Socialism and Communism.

>As I see it, it is similar to
>corporativism

Then you need new glasses.

>I prefer to try not to use cheap
>tricks to inflate opinion and to
>trigger emotions(underlike
>dubya).

Yet that's really all you have to offer, it seems.
Jimbob
September 30, 2006   07:29 AM PDT
 
"You should be afraid, if you're against us."

Gosh, long time no criticism, huh?

"It's a form of collectivism"
Yes, but it's much more than that. If you keep the definition to just those words fascism becomes undistinguishable from socialism or communism.

"Then you need new glasses"
Not really. Calling fascists corporativists does have some background to it - is not a new thing.

Thanks for the Chavez links, I'll take a look.

And please define "us", so I know who to hide from....
CavalierX
October 1, 2006   09:38 AM PDT
 
>fascism becomes
>undistinguishable from socialism
>or communism

Their similarities outweigh their differences. Collectivist economies simply do not work, and are not in the best interest of the people. Look at European Socialism, the weakest form of collectivism lately tried.

>Calling fascists corporativists does
>have some background to it - is
>not a new thing.

No, it's not new, but that doesn't make it true. Old lies are still lies.
BIRDZILLA
October 1, 2006   03:11 PM PDT
 
We should have absolutly nothing to do with the UN and its devious plans for world goverment a world taxman and a one world religion PAGANISM and world wide gun control we should just move the whole UN off american soil to a more fitting place like TENIMEN SQUARE
mkultra
February 18, 2007   10:53 AM PST
 
are you some kind of.. a neoliberal paranoid patriot? ..

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments