home > archive > 2003 > this article

Let the U.N. die

By Henry Lamb
web posted February 17, 2003

For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world's problems, instead of resorting to war. That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States.

Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.

Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George H.W. Bush stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.

The Clinton administration supported the global governance agenda; the Bush administration has tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while working within the framework of the United Nations. The selection of Lybia to head the Human Rights Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and now, France and Germany's determination to continue the U.N.'s 12-year "rush" to war, and their refusal to allow NATO to plan for Turkey's defense - should convince even Congressional Democrats that the U.N. is a lost cause.

America's role, and responsibility to the world, is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S. citizens, and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.' global governance would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries, enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.

It's time to let the U.N. die.

Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world's socialists would close ranks, and try to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S., forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.

Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush's "coalition of the willing" consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to participate, with or without the U.N. Still, Senator Carl Levin, among others, contend that action against Iraq without U.N. approval is "unilateral" action. This idea that the U.N. must legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.

There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination by UNESCO, the National Education Association, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view, the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.

The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of the U.N., America - the land of the free and the home of the brave - will be history. On the other hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and the U.S. Constitution, despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia - we could see the beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization, and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Printer friendly version
Printer friendly version
Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story
 




Printer friendly versionSend a link to this page!


Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 

 

ESR's anti-gun control gear


Home

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.