For years, Conservatives have been trying to alert Americans and all freedom loving people in the world about the dangers the United Nations poses to individual liberty and democracy. Whether it was "Agenda 21," the United Nationsí plan for global sustainable development that would void your private property rights, force you to give up your car in lieu of a bicycle, and reserve almost half of the United States as no human zones to facilitate habitat for migratory animals, or the United Nationsí plan to wrest control of the Internet away from the United States and place it under the "unbiased" control of China, Sudan, and Cuba, or NRA President Wayne LaPierreís warning that the UNís "Small Arms Review Conference" was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, Conservatives have always seen the UN as the anti-American organization it is. And, categorically, we have been ridiculed and called insane by the left as a result.
The left is so consumed in their anti-Americanism that they tend to gravitate toward and support anyone who is opposed to the United States, even to the point of becoming apologists for terrorists, and in this case, a dysfunctional and corrupt international organization. When a liberal is defending the UN, the arguments are generally based on some perceived notion that just because the majority of petty juntas, Communist dictatorships, and radical theocracies of the world have an opinion about something, then that opinion is, by default, granted the coveted Liberal mantle of "international moral authority."
However, reality paints a very different picture of the United Nations. Generally, the world bodyís member states oppose and attack the United States not out of the interests of their populations, but their own personal ego and lust for power. There is no international sense of the common good, and unless under extreme pressure, desire to make the world a better place among the nations motivating the actions of the UN. What there is, instead, is a pathological obsession to force the United States to conform to the bidding of the absolute worse of the member states. The operative word there is "force." The world is jealous of Americaís wealth, power, and strength, and has opted to use the United Nations as the vehicle to undermine America by whatever means possible.
Until now, as the left loves to point out, the United Nations had no mechanism to enforce its policies or other neo-Communist resolutions. Compliance with United Nations resolutions was voluntary, and had to be, in the case of the United States, approved by our elected representatives. If any nation does not like what the UN has to say, then they can just ignore it, and in most cases, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is until now.
Last week, the United Nations unveiled a proposal to develop its own standing army to enforce what it deems to be international law. Oh, wait! Did I say "standing army?" I should have used the UNís own words.
Last week, the United Nations unveiled a proposal to develop its own "Emergency Peace Service" to "take action to prevent war and dire threats to human security and human rights."
Do you know what those rights might be? Do not feel bad; nobody else does either, including the people who wrote the proposal. Other than genocide, there are no clear definitions of what the UN would consider a "crime against humanity," just as it has no clear definition of what terrorism is more than five years after 9/11. So really, the proposed UN army could be used for whatever the UN wants.
The proposal is also unclear about who can deploy the United Nations army. Actually, the problem with the proposal is that lots of people can deploy the force wherever they want, and only one of them is the Security Council. Under the plan, if the Security Council fails to approve an international intervention, the Secretary General of the UN can override the Council and deploy the troops anyhow. Even if the resolution fails because of a veto from one of the five permanent Council members.
This is where the fun part starts. If the Council decides that the Secretary General was wrong, then they can vote under normal rules to bring the troops back. That sounds great, but the problem is that under "normal rules," the permanent membersí veto comes into play. The Security Council would be powerless to end the United Nations militant presence until a bunch of bureaucrats can get around to find the nuanced wording required to avoid a veto. In effect, the Secretary General would become more powerful than the Security Council, and the United States would be unable to stop UN military actions against its interests without the support of France, China, and Russia.
You will have to forgive me if I do not hold my breath for that to happen, or if this proposal is ever passed, plan any trips to Israel. The United Nations proud anti-Semitic past makes Israel the prime target of any UN military action unchecked by the United States UN veto power. And, that would be only the first of many abuses of this unaccountable military power.
Granted, a United Nations army would probably look like an unholy hybrid of a yoga class, group therapy session, and a gun shop, but it is still a first step. It is not as important how effective an UN proposal could be as it is the fact that yet another piece of our sovereignty has been chipped away from us and yielded to an unaccountable foreign body. Do allow yourself to be deceived, American sovereignty is the only thing that keeps Americans free and preserves our way of life. And, each small step the UN makes takes us one small step closer to losing our liberty. If we allow that day to come, do not claim you were not warned.
© June 2006, Justin Darr
Justin Darr is a freelance writer living in the Philadelphia area with his wife and twin children. He can be read widely on the Internet and in publications across North America and in Europe. Justin Darr is a staff writer for The New Media Alliance, and proud member of the MoveOff Network.