It’s Time to Deep-Six the UN

Right after the election in 2004, before Gates of Vienna had really gotten going, I joined the comments at the Belmont Club and suggested that other commenters take up a most pressing topic: getting the United States out of the United Nations. An interesting discussion ensued, and various alternatives to the UN were suggested.

Not long after that Dymphna and I started blogging here, and now whenever the mood strikes me I can rant and rave about the UN.

This latest tirade is the result of a comment made by David S. on Dymphna’s post the other day:

Just finished reading “Meanwhile, in Darfur…”. In reading it I reached the same conclusion that I reached long ago: we need to leave the UN. Period. Form a tighter international organization under NATO if you wish or some other option, but the UN is such a sham and mockery that we as a nation should simply denounce it for what it is and move on. Any time something may actually get done there, the reasonable solutions are blocked by China and Russia, and oftentimes France.

The fear is, in leaving the UN, we lose ‘legitimacy’ for our actions in the international community. What a joke; since when did anyone but our closest allies actually think anything we did was justifiable?

Another fear, I believe, is that seceding from the UN would divide the world into two camps, two sets of alliances in the same fashion as pre-world war politics. The UN in reality does nothing but create a thinly-veiled ‘unity’ which has no relation to policy. Our opposition holds to a different set of values (wrong ones) and has a different ‘constituency,’ if you will. We are already two camps — those who support Western Civilization, and those who do not (or are indifferent and see dollar signs in opposition). It would be as if the United States formed one political party which included the neocons and Christian right in the same group as the Greens, Socialists and other moonbats. It’s absurd.

While the boundary between the two is blurry in many nations including our own, there are numerous countries that have outright declared their undying hatred for us. Why should we have any respect for their opinion when their goals are to destroy us? Why should China, who is fast becoming our main opposition in everything from economics to international policy, be allowed to veto a moral objective such as ending the violence in Darfur simply because it would be unprofitable?

The only reason why we continue to be a part of this joke of an organization is because the MSM keeps painting it as the last hope for humanity. And some people actually doubt there is a liberal bias in the media; what greater proof could there be than their support for the UN?

I hope everyone out there reading this holds the same view. Do any of you see any way we could ever make this possible? In my opinion it is undoubtedly the first step we have to take as a nation to get back on the right course. Thoughts?

My thoughts are: Buddy, if you wanted to hear someone denigrate the UN, then you come to the right place.

Some of our readers are old enough to remember those billboards that used to say, “Get US out of the UN!” They were a feature of highway driving in certain parts of the country, particularly in the South. They went along with “Impeach Earl Warren”, and came from the fringe. They were evidence of a nutjob right-wing wacko, the same kind of backwoods unibrow fellow who said, “Ain’t nobody gonna fluoridate my water!”

[Note to readers: Please don’t tell me about the recently-discovered hazards of fluoridated water. I’m familiar with them; that’s part of what adds irony to this whole story.]

Forty-odd years later, the idea of getting our country out of the UN, and the UN out of our country, doesn’t seem so weird. It’s all but mainstream now, even if the “mainstream” media don’t want you to think so.

The UN has outlived its usefulness, if indeed it ever had any. It has gone past the point of being an ineffectual joke, and entered a new stage where it actively and deliberately aids those people and regimes that most Americans consider evil.

Kofi Annan just went to visit Mad Jad, and basically delivered the message that UN resolutions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on; that no deadline for the correction of Iran’s behavior really exists; that even if it did, there are no meaningful consequence for failure to meet it.

The UN is good for nothing. The only things it can do are to skim money off its funding to line the nests of its apparatchiks, procure underage sex-slaves for its peacekeepers, and pass resolutions condemning Israel.

Oh yes; one other thing: It thoughtfully provides those handy missile-storage ambulances for Hamas and Hizbullah.

And, yes, I know what a good job the World Health Organization does. Every time anybody criticizes the UN, WHO comes up. It’s the transnational equivalent of Head Start — whenever funding is threatened, trot out the poster-boy success program! Especially one that involves smiling little children with big brown eyes.

So any time a congressman questions the federal funding of yet another statue of the Virgin Mary soaked in bat phlegm, the lefties and their lobbyists roll out Head Start. Or the school lunch program. Or Big Bird. Anything to tug the heartstrings of the TV audience and remind them that those nasty, evil Republicans want children to eat ketchup as a vegetable! The horror!

It’s the same with the UN. They vaccinate the children. They bring portapotties to the little ones in the refugee camps. They feed the starving orphans of [insert the name of your favorite Third World country wrecked by socialism here].

What would we do without the UN?

I say: Let’s find out.

Here’s a list of the things we know about the UN:

• The organization is massively corrupt, from top to bottom.
  
• UN officials used the Oil-For-Food program to enrich themselves and actively subvert the foreign policy of the United States, as well as prop up the tyrant Saddam.
  
• The UN would like to tax everyone in the world to fund its corrupt activities, so that it will no longer have to come cap in hand to the Congress and the taxpayers of America.
  
• The UN, along with a large chunk of the Left in this country, believes that the laws of the United States (and any other country) are and should be subordinate to “international law” which is whatever the unaccountable nabobs at Turtle Bay say it is.
  
• The UN believes that everyone has a right to birth control, but not to self-defense.
  
• The structure of the United Nations guarantees that its agenda and procedures will be controlled by the worst undemocratic regimes in the world.

So what have we got to lose if we kiss it goodbye?

The UN — like its star-crossed predecessor, the League of Nations — is supposed to keep the peace. That’s its rationale: rather than resort to war, the well-meaning and peace-minded nations of the world will submit their disagreements to UN mediation, and thus avoid armed conflict.

Uh-huh. Right.

The UN did a good job of stopping war in Rwanda, and Darfur, and East Timor, and Sri Lanka, and Chechnya, and Kosovo, and Somalia, and…

The only war that the UN is willing to stop is any war of self-defense attempted by the State of Israel.

The real truth of the matter, the ugly truth that makes America hated and reviled the world over, is that the only force capable of keeping the peace in the world today is the armed might of the United States of America. No country can remain at war if America has the desire and will to stop it. And, without the help of the United States, the UN is a shrill but ineffectual bystander.

The UN is like an old woman whose cat is stuck up a tree, standing on the sidewalk and shrieking at the firemen, “Save my poor Bootsie!” while the big strong firemen run the ladder up the tree and do their job.

Only this particular old woman is stealing the tires and the chrome trim off the fire truck and putting sand in the gas tank, and all the while the firemen are too busy to notice.

The UN has gone past the point of being an annoying irrelevance. Because of its actions, millions of people will eventually die, and some of them will be our men and women in uniform.

The President has taken an oath to preserve and protect the citizens of this country. He will violate it if he does not, with deliberate speed, begin the work of extricating us from the United Nations.

Our treaty obligations cannot require us to commit national suicide.