Dissent on UNophilia
you visit the United Nations in New York, and get over your amazement
at not being mugged while on the way, you notice the antiquated
modern architecture. Does anything become outmoded faster than yesterday's
you are conscious of being on alien ground, for ever since the Rockefeller
family and their Chase Manhattan Bank donated this land to the U.N.,
it has been very foreign territory.
by limousines and stuffed with indolent world bureaucrats living
high on tax-free incomes, the U.N. is a place where noted former
ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan a vote can be bought for a blonde
or a case of scotch. It is also, we are told, the "last, best hope
typical U.S. history book lauds the "four great presidents": Washington,
Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. I guess a score of 25%
correct isn't bad for the education establishment.
Washington warned us against political entanglements with foreign
governments, although he never envisioned a world state. Abraham
Lincoln didn't concern himself with foreign policy, of course, as
he fastened the federal leviathan on the body of the old republic.
Wilson, who gave us the income tax and the federal reserve, also
wanted a war. So he invaded Mexico and was disappointed when the
Mexicans wouldn't fight. So, to overcome "isolationist" sentiments
among the American people, he helped instigate a phony war atrocity not for the first or last time in American history to justify
our entry into Europe's world war, and the engorgement of government
that it would inevitably bring.
over there, we helped England and France overthrow the Kaiser and
crush the German people, and overthrow the Emperor and wipe the
Austro-Hungarian Empire off the map (even though Germany and Austro-Hungary
had been much less responsible for starting the war than England,
France, and Russia). The result in addition to millions more
dead was to clear the way for Hitler (and Lenin), and to foment
ethnic hatreds with artificial boundaries that cut across ancient
nations, and placed others in unnatural combinations.
satisfied with this, Wilson sought to establish a world authority
that would take decisions of war and peace out of the hands of such
parochial interests as the American people, and enshrine them in
a new cartel of governments called the League of Nations.
isolationist sentiments came roaring back after the armistice, and
conservative senators defeated the League treaty. Wilson, the textbooks
all tell us with a catch in their voice, died a broken man because
he hadn't abolished his country's sovereignty.
D. Roosevelt would not make the same mistake. After establishing
domestic tyranny in the New Deal, Roosevelt also sought a war. When
he got it, he started planning for another cartel of governments,
one that this time would be ratified by the Senate.
Hiss, later exposed as a Soviet spy, traveled to Yalta as FDR's
State Department advisor, and it was at Yalta that Roosevelt and
Stalin first formally agreed to establish the U.N.
was also the U.N.'s first head. As Time magazine noted at
the time, "the Secretary General for the San Francisco Conference
was named at Yalta but announced only last week lanky, Harvard-trained
Alger Hiss, one of the State Department's brighter young men."
the U.N. ratification campaign, the great anti-New Dealer John T.
Flynn said: "As one who has been watching propaganda for a great
many years, I take off my hat. You cannot rum on the radio at any
hour of the day morning, noon, or night whether you listen
to the Metropolitan Opera or to a horse opera, a hillbilly band,
a commentator or a newscaster, that you do not hear a plug for this
great instrument of peace. It is the same kind of propaganda that
Hitler taught the world so effectively." And it worked. The Senate
ratified the U.N. treaty with only two dissenting votes William
Langer's (R-ND) and Henrik Shipstead's (R-MN). Even Robert Taft
(R- OH) nodded on this one.
Hiss ran not only the initial U.N. conferences, but he oversaw the
drafting of the organization's charter and other founding documents.
So it can be no surprise that, like the Soviet Constitution, the
U.N. grants spurious rights to jobs, clothing, medical care, education,
housing, welfare, leisure, etc., while making real rights dependent
on government approval.
U.N. tells us we have the "right to freedom of expression," but
"subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions ...
as provided by law." Freedom of religion is also protected, "subject
only to such limitations as are provided by law."
individual rights, the U.N. says, may be overridden by government
for reasons of "morality, public order, and the general welfare."
No wonder Stalin could happily sign these documents.
is no mention of real economic rights, such as the right to property,
but the U.N. does say that government has the "right" to "nationalize
foreign property. " It also tells us that government not individuals,
families, churches, companies, and charities must be in charge
of "economic, social, and cultural development."
U.N.'s Genocide Convention, long opposed by constitutionalists like
Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC) but passed at the behest of the Reagan administration,
outlaws "causing mental harm" to members of any identifiable group.
These days that could include opposing the civil rights or welfare
agenda. Ile first amendment to the American Constitution would be
by exactly this prospect, and by modem Supreme Court holdings that
make treaties superior to the Constitution, Sen. John Bricker (R-OH)
in the early 1950s submitted an amendment to restore the original
meaning of the Constitution: that no treaty could abrogate the liberty
or the property of the people of the United States.
D. Eisenhower endorsed the Bricker amendment while campaigning,
but opposed it as president, and it failed.
Constitution does call treaties "the supreme law of the land," but
as Thomas Jefferson wrote, this applies to "only those objects which
are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be regulated otherwise....
for surely the President and the Congress cannot do by treaty what
the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."
Supreme Court had held in New Orleans v. U.S. in 1836 that the U.S.
government has "limited powers. It can exercise authority over no
subjects except those that have been delegated to it. Congress cannot,
by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be
enlarged under the treaty-making power. " But today, as in so many
other areas, this wisdom has been erased, and a statist interpretation
even with all its flaws, don't we need the U.N. for world peace?
As J. Reuben Clark, Jr., former undersecretary of state noted in
1945, "there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates
ending war. It is true that the Charter provides for force to bring
peace, but such use of force is itself war... The Charter is a war
document, not a peace document." And we can see that at work today,
as a minor incident is turned into a major war.
U.N. is most worried by violations of existing boundaries. But many
of them, such as those of the Soviet Union, are unjust and illegitimate.
How can it be wrong for the Ukraine to seek its independence, or
a Polish expeditionary force to invade the U.S. S. R. to liberate
U.N. claims to prevent "aggression," but the word is slippery in
the organization's hands. For example, Red China's invasion of Tibet
did not constitute aggression to the U.N., while Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait does.
U.N. promised to stay out of the internal affairs of member countries,
then hypocritically named Rhodesia and South Africa as "threats
to international peace" so it could intervene in their internal
day, it seems, some new U.N. treaty is proposed to limit national
sovereignty and independence even more.
the name of children's rights, the U.N. seeks to take responsibility
for children away from parents and give it to an international bureaucracy,
which is charged with eliminating illiteracy, neglect, abuse, poverty,
hunger, homelessness, and diarrhea. As Dr. Samuel Francis of the
Washington Times has pointed out, "what the departments of
Education and Health and Human Services have done to American society,
the bureaucracies to be created under this convention will do to
the planet. "
the name of ending discrimination against women, the U.N. would
impose pay "equity" on the world economy. "Comparable worth" schemes,
which set wages by bureaucratic fiat, have brought chaos wherever
they have been adopted. This would do so worldwide.
the name of fighting drugs, the U.N. makes bank secrecy a global
crime, to be enforced through economic sanctions and U.N. asset
in the name of international cooperation, the U.N. seeks to combat
"tax avoidance and evasion." A new treaty, already signed by the
Bush administration, though not yet passed by the Senate, places
the "assessment, examination, collection, recovery, and enforcement"
of all taxes, even local property taxes, under U.N. auspices, and
sets up an international enforcement corps and international data
all know how much trouble it is to deal with city hall, let alone
the state house or Washington, D.C. Imagine if we had a world state
taxing, regulating, and controlling our lives. It would be time
for 1776, Part II ... if the U.N. hadn't achieved another one of
its objectives: the confiscation of all privately held weapons.
United Nations is based on the notion that world problems can be
solved by world politicians redistributing the West's wealth. Too
much government has caused most of the world's problems. How can
we think that even bigger government will do anything but make things
last time I went in the voting booth, I don't remember seeing "New
World Order" on the ballot. Yet that is what we're getting, as Bush
and Gorbachev announced at their Helsinki summit whether we want
it or not.
interventionist governments combine, it is to oppress. That is why
every patriot, and every believer in the free market, ought to work
for a Disunited Nations. Without that, we will have little hope
in cutting its component parts down to size.