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
<a href="http://dsausa.org/archive/ESR/Stkm.html">meeting of
the world's socialist leaders</a> in 1991, when George H.W.
Bush stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the
<a href="http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm">
Commission on Global Governance</a>, 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.

<a href=mailto:henry@freedom.org ">Henry Lamb</a> is the
executive vice president of the <a href ="http:
//www.eco.freedom.org/el/"> Environmental Conservation
Organization</a> (ECO), and chairman of <a href="http:
//www.sovereignty.net"> Sovereignty International </a>.
 
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com