I look at the UN as an international feel-good group masking a venue for power-mongers to publicly smile for humanity as they grind the faces of the poor for their own gain.Most of the countries in the world were not founded on the principles of "good" as was the United States of America. So, when we attempt to remain in good standing with that international fraternity, we have to compromise our principles of true freedom. Our country was established on the principles for freedom of religion, so that all its citizenry could worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. Most other countries were founded for other reasons, such as power and riches through conquest.
European public opinion polls about the United States don't mean a thing to me, but for a lot of people, including my own AZ Senator John McCain, they do. Mother's advise is best for this very situation: "If all your friends were going to run and jump off a cliff, would you go to?"
This month's Imprimis pretty much sums up my thoughts about the UN. Check it out: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
Yes, David, this is a little "ethnocentric". When our constitution is compromised in order to kowtow to world opinion, especially that of corrupt UN officials, then ethnocentric or not, right is right and wrong is wrong.
I think the fundamental problem here is that the USA does not have an example to look up to. No other government in history has the same roots as ours. No other constitution was formed by generally honest, good and upright, God-fearing men. We can look back on history and see where governments failed and learn for that. But instead of running in the opposite way, we hasten in the direction of downfall.
The United States of America will not remain a great nation in the eyes of God and man if we let international opinion tell us what we know is right and wrong. The United States of America can remain an ensign to all nations as we hold fast and stalwart to our founding principles.
5 comentarios:
There is nothing that I see anywhere as usless as the UN..Name me one thing that they have solved with endless negotiations..And I would like to see the EU back up their talks with Iran without calling on the US. Since they aren't too fond of us anyway and we wrecked their country when we liberated them from hitlers strangle hold. I don't think many of them over there remember that and for that matter some of our own folks don't either..But, the 8000 white crosses in France didn't die of old age>>
Thanks for your comments Howard and thanks for your service to our country! Thanks for helping give me the freedom to whine about such things as the UN!
In spite of all the UNs short comings, I still think it's a necessary institution. It's a nuclearized world, and if the world community fails to prevent the next major conflict, well, enough said.
My dear Webarians,
The United Nations could learn an important lesson from American history.
Occasionally, you will hear the argument that the dignity and universal propriety of the American Constitution is diminished by the fact that it was instituted in the midst of Negro slavery. The glaring hypocrisy of the situation is undeniable, and it was recognized as such at the time. The writings of the Founder’s make it clear that only the most potent of forces could allow compromise on the issue, and indeed, self-preservation itself was at stake. And so, the deal was struck, the American Experiment launched, and the stage was set for the most destructive internecine bloodbath of the modern era.
In the midst of the Civil War, the pressure on Lincoln to relent on the slavery issue and come to terms, any terms, to stop the bloodshed was incomprehensible. He kept his resolve, citing an unshakable personal adherence to the spirit of the founding principles of this nation as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. He lamented the necessity of the “children to pay for the compromises of the Fathers” and was determined not to pay this evil forward. With the passage of the 13th Amendment, Lincoln felt that the “charter” of the United States (the Declaration) had finally been reconciled with the “vehicle” (the Constitution). He expressed in personal letter to Joshua Speed, that he considered this the last page of the second chapter in the war against slavery, the first being the Revolutionary War.
Preceding both of these events, John Locke wrote what I consider the most eloquent and convincing arguments (the second of his “Two Treatises on Government”) in support of the inherent propriety of self-governance, denouncing all other forms of government as nothing more than slavery on a grand scale. The arguments of Mr. Locke, among others, served as a crystallizing force on the thought processes of our Founding Fathers.
This country is founded on the premise of government by consent of the governed. This is predicated on the principle that mankind is “endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights”. This principle is not limited to Americans, Britons, or any other political, geographical, or cultural group… it is a recognition of the universal fact that the integrity of basic human liberty is an inherent quality, and not subject to governmental fiat. Lincoln’s point was that the most fundamental principles that underlie the American Experiment are, at their root, a comprehensive rejection of slavery in its broadest and most institutionalized form – tyranny posing as governance. It is this concept, not Americanism necessarily, that imprints itself as “self-evident” in the minds of enlightened people the world over. Any discussion of “human rights” bereft of, or complaisant towards, this fundamental principle is entirely lacking in substance and force. And so we come to the United Nations…
The underlying message of the United Nations charter, in its simplest distillation, is an exposition of these principles, and hence, admirable. Its goals of “elevating the human condition”, promoting “human rights”, and “peaceful inter-relations between nations” are above reproach… so what’s the problem? The problem is the vehicle… there isn’t one! They have a “Declaration”, but they have no “Constitution” to reconcile it to.
A Constitution is a body of laws that defines the operation of a political entity. Laws are defined limits and boundaries on the actions and powers of the individuals within the political entity. Laws require two things; they must be the product of the consent of the parties to be subject to them, and they must have penalties that can be enforced. Lacking consent, they are illegitimate by definition… lacking penalties, they are simply wishful thinking! The UN has two fatal flaws in my opinion; one in construction, and one in practice.
In construction: The purpose of the General Council of the United Nations is to draft “International Law”. For the results of their deliberations to be legitimate, they must be a product of consent. Each member in the discussion represents a nation-state. When the nation-state does not recognize the will and interests of its citizens, but rather, the interests of an individual despot, or ruling elite, the “charter” of the UN is compromised and the product of the deliberations rendered illegitimate. It is precisely this dynamic that allows a despot to rape his country of resources (both human and material), offer them to the world market, and profit from the spoils… all of this in conformance with the “International” standard for sovereign prerogative. Of course, this is at the expense of the interest and well-being of his own citizens. Perversely, in the prevailing, backward-thinking, politically correct atmosphere, the despot benefits twice in this transaction by deflecting the anger of his population (and many others who should know better) onto the consumer of these resources rather than where it belongs… directly in his lap! That’s what comes from today’s global version of “taxation without representation”.
In practice: Since the selfish interests of non-representative (and some irresponsible representative) nation-states have always, and continue, to contaminate the deliberations of the UN, a culture of gridlock and malaise has become endemic. The UN has long since lost the resolve to act to defend it’s principles. Instead, it has devolved into a pattern of appeasement, empty threats, and corruption. As a result, it is unwilling (indeed, incapable) of following thru on the penalty phase of it’s resolutions… it is the proverbial paper tiger.
I am not a UN hater. I am filled with sadness and disappointment at it’s failure. It was born from a spirit of benevolence and hope. Unfortunately, history shows that it was doomed from the start. It’s construction ensured that it’s members would include entities opposed, practically and philosophically, to it’s core principles. Almost immediately, it accepted a compromise similar to that of our Founding Fathers, allowing “slavery” (illegitimate, non-representative governments in this case) a seat at the table. Due to the contaminating influence and conflicting interests of the “slaveholders”, the conversation became incoherent, and the practice of “International Law” became untenable. Indeed, lacking legitimate consent, and the capacity to enforce, “International Law” has never been developed and doesn’t yet exist. I’m afraid that the UN, as it exists today, is a hopeless case, constitutionally incapable of fulfilling it’s charter. Like the United States did, it must look to it’s core principles and make the fundamental constitutional changes, howsoever painful, to excise the cancer of it’s glaring hypocrisy.
Fortunately, unlike the embryonic United States, if the UN were not to survive, it would not be a significant blow to the prospects of human liberty, and no great war of principle is warranted on it’s behalf. The fuse that was lit in 1776 has fired the imaginations of oppressed people everywhere, and exploded the concept of human liberty to the ends of the Earth. It cannot be extinguished, UN or no UN. The hard truth is, as long as people are groaning under the burden of slavery on this planet, there will not be peace. I look forward to a day when there is a UN that does not give slavery a legitimate voice, and solid, legitimate International law can emerge and prevail. Alas, that day is not now.
Publius
Publius, that was such a scholarly and historical editorial. Impressive! Your reasoning demonstrates what I was trying to get at when I said that we compromise our constitution by welcoming evil with open arms to the table of international discussion.
Publicar un comentario