 |
 |
|
|
|
|
What's the best way for the U.S. to promote the cause of international peace and human rights? CS member Pete Kurzenhauser says it's to exit the U.N., in this article published in The Washington Times. Pete's article is the best explanation what we've learned in the last 50 years - the U.N. doesn't work. Here's the article: The recent events where the U.N. Human Rights Commission evicted the United States and elected the Sudan, most notable among other countries for its human rights violations, demonstrate that the United Nations has lost sight of its purpose. Further, the ejection of the U.S. representative from the International Narcotics Control Board leaves no doubt about the venality of the majority of its members. All the columnists and pundits have professed surprise by these events, but they are not surprising at all. They were entirely predictable, based on the progression of a previously evident pattern, and based on the incentives inherent in the U.N. charter itself. The U.N. is not a confederation with a common cause. It is instead a loose organization of competing interests, particularly between countries generally having a liberal, representative, republican government and the rule of law, vs. those that are tyrannies of politburos or dictatorships. For nearly as long as the United Nations has existed, the tyrannies have used its processes to oppose and impede the objectives of the liberal republics and the Charter of the U.N. itself to defend and expand human rights. From the initial opposition to U.N. involvement in Korea, to the early days of Israel and the United Arab Republic, to Vietnam, and on to the more recent crises, the U.N. has been used to confound action rather than advance it. To the extent that any action in support of human rights, international law, suppression of terrorism, and advancing other principles has succeeded, it has been due to a coalition by a subset of the liberal republics, generally led by the United States, despite the U.N. And if the United Nations lent any actual support or imprimatur to those actions, the other countries had to be cajoled, prodded, coerced and usually paid off to get that support. The flaw lies both in the Charter of the United Nations and in the nature of politics. The Charter establishes a body whose members are pretty much equal in terms of their voting power, regardless of the number of their citizens, their economic and political power, or their moral standing. Burma, Cambodia, Congo, Kenya, Serbia, Belarus and other totalitarian regimes have as much representation and claim to legitimacy in that forum as the United States, France, the United Kingdom or Japan. Yes, the Security Council permanent members have a veto power, but that is a negative power that can only impede, not initiate, action. The cotes of the liberal republics are outnumbered by the tyrannies, and any action that truly supports human rights, by definition, conflicts with the political interests of the tyrannies. Therefore, paradoxically, political favors, coercion, and corruption are necessary instruments for gaining consensus to support moral actions. Even when consensus is gained, nothing prohibits dissenting states from separately pursuing their agendas, even undermining the U.N. resolutions they nominally voted for. And they frequently do. The excuses usually given by professional diplomats and apologists for the Untied Nations are that, despite its imperfections, it is better to stay engaged and use diplomacy to support our objectives where we can, slowly building coalitions over time. This is blatantly silly. The end result, after 50+ years, is that we have bankrolled an organization and rogue members who have turned on us and held the good will and commitment of the liberal republics hostage to actually prevent achievement of the goals of the U.N. Charter. In addition, we have compromised our moral authority, diminished our trust, and bought ourselves terrorist attacks against our land and citizens due to the deals we've made. If we have not built enduring coalitions to advance human rights and other issues in the two generations since Word war II, during which time the U.S.A. has held dominance or outright superiority in every facet of world affairs, then they never will be built. To pretend otherwise is to meet the definition of insanity as "doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result." There will be no different result until the U.N. Charter is significantly changed to give different incentives and distribution of power, and there is just about zero chance of that ever happening. So, the United States must quit the U.N. The world liberal-elites will instantly scream that this act is an immature temper tantrum, not worthy of a great nation, and "going back to isolationism." On the contrary, quitting the U.N. would unfetter the United States to directly engage in promoting our objectives throughout the world without dissipating our efforts by trying to gain cooperation or support from a body inimical to our objectives. Instead of spending $1 billion+ on U.N. "dues" every year, we can spend that money directly on supporting human rights and opposing tyranny. I especially like the proposal put forth by one a Washington Times columnist last week to buy African slaves their freedom for the measly sum of what, $130 million per year? [If we did start buying freedom for slaves, we'd soon find the price going up, since subsidies always call forth more of a behavior - ed.] There are plenty of other worthy proposals that we will be free to act on directly and so guide the outcomes. Nor will the U.S. go it alone. We will continue to build coalitions of like-minded countries and participate in various organizations, such as NATO, the Group of Seven, NAFTA, and others that promote our objectives. Nor will we avoid cooperating with the U.N., when it advances our purposes. But we will drop the expensive and unconvincing charade that the United Nations is necessary for world peace and cooperation. Clearly it is not. I consider the last 50 years of massive amounts of money and effort wasted propping up the United Nations, and I imagine how much better the world might be today if we and our partners had instead spent those resources directly promoting human and political rights throughout the world. And I am discouraged by the opportunities squandered. It is time to admit that the U.N. does not help advance rights and peace, but is actually an impediment. Let's stop pouring resources down that hole and compromising our national character. Ironically, quitting the U.N. can do more to reform it than staying a member. Now is a good time to let it go. |
|