What are we going to do about the
United Nations? Exactly what has the U.N. accomplished? I will grant that
the U.N. began with the most noble and loftiest of intentions, but does it
still embody those intentions?
It’s ineffectual, it’s corrupt, it’s
unelected, it’s dominated by scores of tiny countries which have learned that
if they claim discrimination or claim that their “human rights” are being
denied, they can make the wealthy, successful nations feel enough guilt (thanks
to the leftists within those countries who rarely if ever made any contribution
to either the wealth or the success) to shovel money at them even as they
declare their undying hatred for the countries who are being shaken down.
That makes the United Nations sound
like it has a lot in common with the U.S. Congress, doesn’t it?
In essence, the United Nations
doesn’t work. But then the predecessor of the U.N., the League of Nations,
didn’t work too well. The European Union isn’t working out too well. I might be
wrong, but there seems to be a pattern emerging. Every attempt to take a bunch
of disparate nation-states and use normal (i.e., bumbling and power hungry)
bureaucrats to create a one-size-fits-all new world order has always failed.
And we pay an awful lot for their
ineffective failures. According to an Office of Management and Budget report to
Congress, the United States spent at least $7.7 billion dollars supporting the
U.N. in 2010, the latest data available.
Does anyone believe that spending
that $7.7 billion is making them safer or reducing the dangers of war? Anyone?
We spend more on the United Nations
than any other member nation. For instance, the cost of the U.N.‘s
“peacekeeping” missions is apportioned among all member states. Now that sounds
fair, doesn’t it? Except that the formula used by the U.N. is similar to a
formula for taxing Americans—the wealthier you are, the more they’re going to
take.
According to the United Nations itself, the top ten nations
(out of 191 member states) are supposed to pay 81% of the total costs of
“peacekeeping”. And would you like to guess who the U.N. considers to be the
“wealthiest” nations, the ones who will be making those payments? Here they are
(with the percentage of the total peacekeeping budget they are liable for):- United
States—(27.14%)
- Japan—(12.53%)
- United
Kingdom—(8.15%)
- Germany—(8.02%)
- France—(7.55%)
- Italy—(5.00%)
- China—(3.93%)
- Canada—(3.21%)
- Spain—(3.18%)
- Republic
of Korea—(2.26%)
As an aside, given the method used
to apportion the obligation for these nearly useless “peacekeeping” missions,
it’s interesting, again with the exception of the PRC, all the nations on the
list are capitalist democracies. What a coincidence, huh? And even at that, the
PRC is the most capitalist non-democratic nation around.
Of course the United Nations does a
lot more than just fund ineffective efforts to keep the peace. In 2003, for
example, the United Nations adopted a resolution, signed by over 140 General
Assembly nations, titled the United
Nations Convention against Corruption. Keep in mind that resolution
was adopted nearly ten years ago. Have you noticed a massive decrease in
government corruption anywhere on the planet? It seems that their
anti-corruption efforts are just as ineffective as the U.N.‘s peacekeeping
efforts.
The U.N. has, in the past twelve
months alone, drafted resolutions that:
- Speak
out against female genital mutilation.
- Reaffirm
the United Nations strong commitment to the sovereignty, unity and
territorial integrity of Mali. And to really prove they weren’t kidding
around, this resolution came out of the Security Council.
- The
creation of an Assistance Mission in Somalia in order
to “[provide] policy advice to the Federal Government and the African
Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) on peacebuilding and state-building in
the areas of: governance, security sector reform and rule of law
(including the disengagement of combatants), development of a federal
system (including preparations for elections in 2016), and coordination of
international donor support.”
And of course no one could possibly forget that it was the United Nations that drafted, voted and approved the draft treaty for arms control. The one that the Obama administration is so anxious to sign. The one that could be used as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment.
The major stated goal of the Arms
Treaty is, obviously, reducing armed conflict. But like most U.N. resolutions,
it is written in such a way as to give a great deal of latitude for member
states to interpret it as they choose. The treaty regulates the international
transfer of all conventional arms within the following categories: battle
tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat
aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and
small arms and light weapons.
One can only wonder if the language
of the treaty would prevent (or at least provide an excuse for the
administration to cease) all arms shipments to Israel. Or to Poland, South
Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic or any other nation or nominative ally
anywhere that is threatened by a totalitarian regime.
When the overall ineffectiveness of
the United Nations is combined with treaties that limit the United States to
actions that require the approval of our enemies it is a wonder that we remain
as members. Yes, America was a founding member of the United Nations, but we
were also a founding member of the League of Nations. When the League of
Nations was a failure, we recognized reality and let it die. It may be time to
recognize reality again and let the U.N. simply die.
Should the United States withdraw
from the United Nations, there might be several beneficial side-effects. If the
Presidents of Iran or Venezuela want to come to speak at the U.N. to attack the
United States well, they can, but only if they speak in Geneva. They would no
longer be entitled to speak at the U.N. in New York since the U.N. building in
New York would no longer be a diplomatic site. It would simply be a large,
ostentatious office building. It would be subject to property taxes. The
Ambassadors to the U.N. would no longer have diplomatic immunity. (Mayor
Bloomberg could probably balance New York City’s budget by just getting them to
pay their parking tickets.)
Yes,
it may finally be time to pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to
die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness.
Source:
Canada Free Press, Abandon the United
Nations? By Jim Yardley (Bio and Archives) Friday, July 5, 2013
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56333.
Comments:
UN
Agenda 21 is the UN’s blueprint for the world and is based on the global
warming hoax. The UN and their global
Marxist NGO minions have spent trillions of our tax dollars running this scam
and it’s over.
We
are in a period of global cooling and have been for the past 15 years. The computer models that gave us global
warming have been discredited and actual data, leaked emails and actual
investigations have debunked this carbon trading racket. It has new names like Climate-gate.
The
UN has voted to take over all US property, water, minerals and freedom. Obama is their implementer. Carbon is not a pollutant and should be
removed from the EPA list.
The
best reason for the US to quit the UN is the country wrecking implementation of
UN Agenda 21.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment