Why is There a United Nations?

Posted by johnhouk on Sep 29, 2007
 John R. Houk
© September 29, 2007

It is beyond me why Western Democracies continue membership in the United Nations. The U.N. Charter created by victorious Democracies over Fascism, Nazism and Japanese Imperial brutality at the end of WWII has been rendered irrelevant since the inclusion Mohammedan nations, Mohammedan sympathetic nations and despotic Third World Nations.

U.N. Charter Preamble:

    WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

    * To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

    * To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

    * To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

    * To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

    AND FOR THESE ENDS

    *     To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

    * To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
    * To ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

    * To employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

    HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

    Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.


Obviously this is a meaningless scrap of geopolitical humbug.

Here is the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the U.N. in 1948 – Hmmm … The very year Arab Mohammedan nations first tried to wipe Israel off the map):

      Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,


    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.


Despotic Communist nations made this a farce from day one; however with the inclusion of the influence of Mohammedan ruled nations in the U.N. General Assembly it is more a load of crap in 2007 than in 1948.

Ann Bayefsky writes about the total irrelevance of the United Nations; however she misses the reason that Western nations feel impelled to remain in the U.N. due the power of the Security Council. Unanimous votes (this excludes abstentions) in the Security Council are capable of mobilizing a significant military array to enforce the will of the Security Council will (but not necessarily the United Nations will comprised of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General).

The former Soviet Union’s abstention in Korean War illustrated this and the USA took full advantage to engage in a U.N. sanctioned war that ended up in a stalemate and the separation of Korea into two separate nations.

The Global lesson learned is that one veto nullifies even a majority vote of the Security Council. Therein lay the hesitation of America or any other permanent Security Council nation from departing from United Nations membership. If a Britain, France or America (three of five permanent members) should leave the U.N. the remaining permanent members (Russia and China) could lead a coalition that would be detrimental geopolitically to some nation or nations.

Thus the only way for America to abandon the U.N. is to pre-arrange a coalition to counter her enemies. Currently even Western Democratic nations are jealous of American global hegemony; therefore lay the American quandary with the United Nations.

JRH
**********************************************

United Nations Fails

by Anne Bayefsky
From the September 25, 2007 New York Sun
Hudson Institute
September 25, 2007

The global platform which will be handed today to President Ahmadinejad by the United Nations is not as shocking as first meets the eye. The U.N. and the poster boy for state sponsors of terrorism have a long and cozy relationship - and one that threatens civilization as we know it.

Take, for example, the Iranian president's single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons. Over three years ago, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to have violated its Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty obligations. Ever since, the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, an Egyptian, has assigned himself the role of running interference for Iran. He first focused on keeping Iran off the agenda of the Security Council, a delay tactic that worked for a few precious years. When the matter finally got to the Council, ElBaradei railed against sanctions.

In January 2007 ElBaradei suggested a "time-out" on the "application of sanctions." In July 2007 he concocted a deal between the IAEA and Iran "on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues" - double-talk for keeping the development of another Islamic bomb within the family. Two weeks ago he again called for a "time-out" and a cessation of sanctions, breathing whole new meaning into the bored diplomatic concern that the U.N. might "talk us to death."

Then there is the burgeoning rapprochement between the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and Mr. Ahmadinejad. Ms. Arbour traveled to Tehran at the beginning of September to attend a "human rights" conference. She settled in to a front row seat to listen to Mr. Ahmadinejad announce: "We are against rule of the non-righteous individuals. … [R]evolutionary Iran aims at global government and a genuine Islamic culture so as to gain a loftier position worldwide."

Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki called on conference-goers to "modify" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the "Islamic world" wasn't present when it was drafted. Ms. Arbour, at pains not to offend her hosts, called for the promotion of "Universal human rights … in a contextually sensitive way" since "Universality need not be considered in an inflexible and rigid manner."

Needless to say, her Iranian hosts were thrilled with her visit and the very next day felt sufficiently empowered to give the world a display of the human rights "context" in Tehran — by executing 21 people, many publicly and stringing their bodies up for display. Under the flexible legal code in Iran, people are executed for charges like "enmity against God" or "being corrupt on earth."

A week prior to Ms. Arbour's visit, the U.N. handed Iran a leadership role on the planning committee of the next global U.N. anti-racism conference — Durban II — notwithstanding that its president has called extermination of six million Jews during World War II "a myth."

And this isn't the only U.N. leadership role given Iran. Nuclear proliferator Iran is the vice-chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Treaty violator Iran is a member of the U.N.'s Wider Appreciation of International Law Advisory Committee.

The U.N. also has gone to extraordinary lengths to fete Iranians - like handing Iranian Massoumeh Ebtekar the 2006 Champion of the Earth award for her "creativity, vision and leadership, and the potential of her work and ideas for replication across the globe." Among her creative acts, "Screaming Mary" - as she was dubbed by the world's press - performed as the spokesperson for the Iranian terrorists that took 66 Americans hostage in 1979.

Over the years, the U.N.'s courtship with Iran has had other odious consequences. In 2002 the U.N. Human Rights Commission terminated the post of U.N. investigator into human rights abuses in Iran. Outnumbered and outmaneuvered, Western democracies have never attempted to reinstate it.

In July and August of 2006 Iranian-backed Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets at the Israeli civilian population, and in the midst of the war on August 3 Mr. Ahmadinejad openly declared: "The main solution is the elimination of the Zionist regime."

Only four weeks after attempting genocide and the destruction of a U.N. member state, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan flew to Tehran of his own volition, shook hands with Mr. Ahmadinejad, and proclaimed: "The international community should count on Iran, not isolate it."

One of the more bizarre annual U.N. spectacles is the Iranian U.N. Ambassador piloting through the General Assembly a resolution on "human rights and cultural diversity." Nobody mentions that cultural diversity in Iran includes stoning people to death for adultery by first burying them waist deep - a legal punishment inflicted as recently as July 13, 2007.

This is what the U.N. of the 21st century does for terrorists, dictators, and despots. Mr. Ahmadinejad will wrap himself in a U.N.-provided human rights flag, and proceed to talk about peace, truth, justice, and freedom. The veneer of human rights will confuse many about the evil that lurks within.

Though dangerous gibberish from beginning to end, his words will be translated into five languages, broadcast on the U.N. Web site around the world and archived for permanent consultation. And the power of peace, truth, justice, and freedom will be all that much weaker as real impediments to his barbarism are nowhere in sight.
________________________

 Why is There is a United Nations
John R. Houk
© September 29, 2007
______________________

United Nations Fails
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.

© Copyright 2007 Hudson Institute, Inc.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]