The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

The UN and our Articles of Confederation

Neither is a workable concept.

In the news today are stories about the U.N.‘s report of “The High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes,” a document that ignores rot in the core concept of the UN and prescribes little more than public-relations shuffling of Security Council membership.

It’s clear that the UN doesn’t work and should be scrapped.  The only question is whether to scrap it entirely, or to preserve some of its functions as independent agencies.

Our own history provides a lesson.

In the hot summer of 1787 delegates from the states of the United States began arriving in Philadelphia.  They were charged by the Confederation congress to agree upon ways to reform the Articles of Confederation, under which government was proving to be unworkable.

Disregarding their instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, the delegates recommended a fundamental restructuring of the government.  The Articles of Confederation were to be replaced with the Constitution, creating a new form of government, which they styled a federal republic.  Under the Constitution, this new United States was to be a stronger union of the states, in which the federal government would have greater, though still circumscribed, powers.  The states retained much of their original autonomy, and within the Federal government there were numerous and counter-balancing divisions of power.

The situation with the UN has a number of parallels that make it as feckless as the United States under the Articles of Confederation.  There are also some crucial differences.

As with the Articles of Confederation, the UN is little more than a debating society with no real power.  It has become simply a propaganda platform for world-wide socialism.

Unlike the situation among our own states in 1787, there is very little commonality of interests among the UN’s member states.  No world situation of consequence can find sufficient support among enough UN members to produce effective military enforcement of UN resolutions.  It is folly to think that a UN including Islamic terrorist nations will support military actions against their own aggressions.

When it has managed to pass resolutions condemning aggression, the UN has proved itself as powerless to enforce its decisions as was the United States under the Articles of Confederation.  George Washington and other statesmen of the day complained that governing under the Articles of Confederation was little more than a joke.  Congress enacted taxes or ordered compliance with a resolution, and the individual states ignored these orders with impunity when it suited them to do so.  Congress had no enforcement powers.

Similarly the UN was created to stop wars of aggression.  Yet, it has acted effectively to stop military aggression only in Korea, and that only because the United States took the lead after the USSR failed to vote against the action.  Otherwise, the UN has generally ignored wars and genocide, or issued denouncements without teeth.  It has never condemned Islamic terrorism, calling jihadists “freedom fighters.”  It consistently identifies Israel, the victim of relentless terrorism, as the aggressor.

Rather than forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with its dozen or so resolutions, the Security Council rewarded him with a plus or minus $20 billion rake-off in history’s largest financial crime, the UN’s Oil-for-Humanitarian-Aid program.

On a fundamental level, the UN was a flawed concept from the get-go.  Its impetus was the euphoric expectations of world peace, after the end of World War II, that flowed from one of socialism’s basic tenets. 

Socialists believe that wars are engineered by private businesses to enrich themselves with wind-fall profits.  Get rid of private property and Big Business, and redistribute the world’s wealth among the poor; theoretically aggression, crime, and wars will disappear.  Socialists therefore believe that the workers of the world owe their allegiance to world-wide socialism, to oppose war,  private business, and private property-ownership with international worker solidarity.  Parenthetically, have you ever wondered why American labor unions have names like International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers?

The revolutionary version of this secular faith was Karl Marx’s notorious call in 1848 for the workers of the world to unite in class warfare and overthrow their capitalist rulers.  The anti-American version of Marx’s call is heard throughout the land on America’s college campuses and in the political campaigns of liberal-socialists.

The UN embodies this socialist faith, and the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that its purpose is to promote socialism’s materialistic and secular social justice. 

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” and Article 25 explains security by offering a laundry list of entitlements found in today’s liberal-socialist campaign platforms.  Note that “Security” was President Franklin Roosevelt’s summation of what he called a Second Bill of Rights to correct the inadequacy of the original one.  Individualism of the original Bill of Rights no longer worked, Roosevelt said; the Federal government must guarantee the security of such things as jobs, homes, national health care, education, and old-age assistance as Constitutional rights. 

Under the leadership of our socialistic New Deal and England’s newly-elected socialist Labour government, the UN was formed to secure world peace by promoting this pure strain of socialism.

One might think that observing their collectivist concept in action in Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, and National Socialist Germany might have invoked just a tiny bit of doubt about whether repeating the same formula would result in world harmony and perfection of mankind.

Not so.  The UN, “world opinion,” and the so-called “community of nations, ” remain magic words for liberal-socialists.  Senator John Kerry, our latest icon of liberal-socialism, is on record that no American military forces can be deployed outside this country without UN approval.  Liberal-socialists remain blithely confident that, if God, spiritual religion, and morality can be swept aside, the rational minds of intellectuals will effectuate beatific social justice for all of mankind.