My thoughts on the United Nations and the membership of the United States thereof

At the end of WWII, the UN was created as an organization in which the strongest military powers in the world (such as the USA, Russia, China, Britain and France) sought to control an agenda which furthered their individual nationalistic aims-and hence the creation of a super-body, the so-called Security Council, which could squash any outrageous initiatives from smaller countries and their voting blocs by a simple single-nation veto.

So from the very beginning, there have been many institutional implements available for the strongest nations to impose their will upon the many.

Over time, however, we have seen the erstwhile stronger nations degenerate into weak ones (the USSR/Russia, Great Britain) while some of the weaker ones have become more powerful either by their control of strategic resources (the Arab nations), by their surging economies (Germany, Japan), or by their alliances (the Africans), or by cynical manipulation (France, India).

Against such alliances, the United States finds itself defeated by the very rules and ideals that it created in the foundation of the United Nations-and that "one man, one vote" ideal has become the instrument of its own powerlessness when used in committee rules, in floor votes and in all the parliamentary folderol that weaves its webs of constraint about the United States.

I mention all this simply to say that while we have been playing the idealistic diplomat, we’ve been bushwhacked. Of course, one could be cynical and say that since we made the rules, we have to abide by them. But that is simply compounding misplaced idealism with na├»ve consistency.

While the United Nations has paid lip service to the "peace among nations" ideal, the most constant action amongst the motley collection of statist nations, tribalist alliances and their socialist bureaucrats has had but one objective: to redistribute the wealth of the strong among all the others-and as the strongest of all, the United States has provided these envious thieves with a common target.

For those who would say, "the United States has to stay a part of the family of nations," in order to influence and control the changes of international activity. But while this continuance is logical, it is also foolhardy. Staying in a family is not in one’s best interests when your brothers and cousins are planning to embezzle all your money from your savings and divert your salary into their household accounts.

And in a realistic sense, this is what the United Nations has evolved into, and the United States has acquiesced in the evolution, either by intent or by stupidity, or both. The UNESCO Human Rights Commission, composed now of such champions of liberty such as Sudan, has become a microcosm of the United Nations itself. In the truest sense of the word, the lunatics are indeed running the asylum.

So the rules have changed. The United States does itself no good by maintaining its membership in this body, this so-called United Nations: unless the United States wishes, through its own willfulness, to participate in its own destruction at the hands of its enemies and supine allies.

Related entries

Digg it StumbleUpon del.icio.us Google Yahoo! reddit

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.