On U.N. Intervention in Libya and World Government
Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff: Leapfrog
The U.N. intervention
in Libya is a major political event. The U.N. is intervening inside
a country that has not aggressed against another country. Whether
or not this is the first time that this has happened, it is surely
an important and clear-cut instance of this happening.
The U.N. is
intervening to take down the Gaddafi administration and replace
it by another, of undetermined nature. This means that the U.N.
places its power over that of the Libyan state. The U.N. makes itself
the Supreme Governor in the sense that it decides on a critical
feature of a State, namely, who has "consent," or who
is entitled to rule that State when protests against the existing
It is not beyond
the realm of possibility that the U.N. launch a drone attack to
further in analyzing this, letís recognize openly that the entire
development is within the existing framework of States. The term
"State" hides the fact that every State is an armed gang.
The U.N. gives too much credence and respect to States. Letís recognize
that this framework is morally flawed. The weight of history and
the apparent reality of this system should not, at a fundamental
level, cause us to evaluate States positively and accept them. They
are negative for human beings.
I will analyze this intervention within this flawed framework. It
doesnít mean I approve of it. I donít. That doesnít mean that I
approve of Gaddafi. I donít. The situation is a tragic one. None
of the choices are palatable. Nevertheless, I believe that the worse
thing for the world at large is to strengthen the U.N. and to have
it move further in the direction of world government. Thatís the
thrust of this article.
of the U.N. starts off with "We the Peoples of the United Nations."
This is a fiction. It is an even greater fiction than the Preamble
to the U.S. Constitution, which starts off with "We the People."
goes on to say that "our respective Governments...have agreed
to the present Charter..." This means that we the peoples didnít
have a direct say when the commitments were made. We certainly have
had no say since that time. If this is "consent," itís
totally meaningless. The fact is that just as the U.S. government
imposes its will on me and you, no matter what we want or say or
think, the U.N. is just another government imposing its will upon
us or others, as it sees fit and as it can. A government created
by national governments is still a government.
I regard the
U.N. as just as illegitimate a government as the U.S. government.
Consent is a pretense and a fiction. I pay taxes at the point of
a gun. I obey many laws at the point of a gun. Washington is a gang,
and so is the U.N.
All the high-sounding
language that spells out objectives of these governments is beside
the point. The objectives may or may not be good ones. They may
or may not be attainable by governments. Those are separate issues.
High objectives do not justify using force and violence to attain
them when the latter simply undermine achieving those objectives.
I certainly do not approve of such force and violence when it undermines
freedom of the person, which it does.
I donít approve
of Gaddafiís actions, and I donít approve of the U.N.ís actions.
However, if the U.N.ís actions stand as a precedent, then the world
is moving to world government. If the U.N. has the power to decide
what each countryís political structure is, as in Libya, then who
is going to decide what the structure of the U.N. is when it becomes
oppressive? It will be some coalition of States, who wield the power
behind the U.N., or eventually it might be some independent U.N.
force. When there is one government of the world, and when one State
attempts to break away, will the U.N. allow it? Of course not. If
it did, the world government would break down. Governments usually
try to prevent secession.
We have already
seen what happened in the U.S. when the Constitution was put in
and when a national government with powers was created. The dynamic
went to centralization. A coalition of States under Lincoln imposed
rule on the remaining States. The same kind of dynamic will occur
with the United Nations, or already has, or is occurring now. Governments
always seek more power and control.
is not imminent. I am not ringing that alarm bell. But if we look
ahead, we can see it being shaped. The form may be unclear, but
we can still make it out. It is not a good political development.
It means more centralized power being exercised over people.
of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality
of all its Members." Its Members are States (not We the People).
Libya is a member. The U.N. intervention is violating its own Charter.
The U.S. government violated its own Constitution repeatedly. The
U.N. is violating its Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty,
and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty.
This is par for the course for governments with charters and constitutions.
These documents exist to be violated. By what means do we the peoples
control the U.N.? We cannot. Weíd best take it apart while weíre
taking apart the governments of our respective States.
Article 2 refers
repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between
or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly
that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating
this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya. Can this
organization be trusted?
perhaps leaves itself a loophole, where it says that "this
principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter VII." However, that Chapter refers again and
again to "international peace and security." By no stretch
of the imagination or by any legal maneuvering or mumbo-jumbo does
this mean the internal affairs of Libya. International peace means
between two nations or among several nations. Libyaís civil war
is within Libya. It is not breaking the international peace. The
term "international security" is not threatened either,
to the extent that this term can be comprehended. If some countries
think that they must have Libyan oil in order to maintain their
security, they should have managed this risk in other ways before
this time. They shouldnít be using the U.N. and U.N. force to bail
them out of their own bad risk management of the past. Even if they
impose such force, they might end up making matters worse for themselves.
I do not underestimate the ineptitude of any government or any coalition
position will not go down well with those who want to see the anti-Gaddafi
forces win. What can I say? I wish that the world were different.
I wish that this dilemma didnít exist. I wish that we as individuals
were allowed by our governments to form militias that could go overseas
on a voluntary basis to help secure freedom for others. I wish that
everyone knew how to apply the methods of non-violent resistance
to secure freedom. I wish that resort to arms was rejected or could
be rejected by secessionary movements and movements to topple dictators,
so that raw power didnít determine these matters. I wish many things.
My focus here
is less on the civil war in Libya than on world government and what
U.N. intervention means for world government. I view world government
as a very great danger. How would you like it if, 100 years from
now, the U.N. were dominated by a coalition of 3 or 4 nations, and
if it instituted government that you hated? What could you do about
it? Look how difficult it is within the U.S. to do anything about
the U.S. government. Many people are reduced to waiting for the
whole enterprise to collapse, with the vague hope that somehow something
better will arise from the rubble.
S. Rozeff [send him mail]
is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.
He is the author of the free e-book Essays
on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book
The U.S. Constitution
and Money: Corruption and Decline.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Michael S. Rozeff