< United We Stand--The Irrelevance of the UN</FONT>?
 
Home | Forum | News | Articles | UWS Constitution | Links | Contact Us

The Irrelevance of the UN
By Joshua Wiznitzer
Originally printed in the 02/24/03 issue of the Brandeis Free Press

With the talk of Saddam Hussein’s disarmament in the news, throughout the past few weeks, the world has seen examples of how the United Nations really works. For example, Lybia, was recently elected to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission by a vote of 33 to 3 (with only the US, Canada and Guatemala voting against; and European nations abstained). It is absurd to think that Muammar Qadhaffi’s regime—one which tortures dissidents, prohibits freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and has been implicated in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988, killing 203—would ever head a commission on human rights; let alone be elected to head the one charged with defending human rights.


Sadly, this is not a random occurrence; it was a textbook demonstration of how the UN works. As WorldNetDaily reported on Jan. 27, 2003; This is the same organization which recently announced that Iraq would be heading the UN’s Conference on Disarmament "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community"—with Iran co-chairing the conference. To complete the grand slam, Syria, another terror supporting state is currently sitting on the UN’s most powerful committee: the UN Security Council.

Yes, this is the same organization that is charged with defending human rights and maintaining world peace. It is a assembly of governments—one which does not discriminate between those which rule with the consent of the governed and those governments who rule by force and fear. Each of these governments is each given one vote at the UN—giving nations the same power, regardless of their respects for peace and dignity.

This is the same body that sat idly by during the genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina. The body which unjustly discriminates against Israel and world Jewry—as best indicated by its infamous declaration that “Zionism is a form of Racism and racial discrimination” (Res. 3379—11/10/75) a declaration which was not reversed until December 16, 1991. At the same time, the UN looks the other way while human rights abuses and breaches of “international law” are being committed in Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. As columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote: “The UN is a moral wasteland, and it is folly to treat its imprimatur as a benchmark of international legitimacy”.

Now in recent weeks, some congressional officials have been arguing that the United States can not go and disarm Iraq, and Saddam Hussein alone; rather, we must seek the approval of the UN Security Council (again).

Why should we have to again seek the approval of the UN Security Council to take action against Iraq for violating UN Resolution 1441 (which was only passed after intense US pressure)? Since when does the UN dictate the foreign policy of the United States? Why should we have to have France’s and Syria’s (who have financial interests in preventing any war with Iraq—due to their large contracts with the regime) permission to disarm Iraq, who poses a threat to the national security of the USA and her allies? The United States is about to expose the strategic irrelevance of the UN as it leads a coalition to disarm Iraq, without the UN’s “permission.”

The UN has time and time again displayed its impotence, but as Charles Krauthammer recently wrote: “the UN will sink once again into irrelevance. This time it will not recover. And the world will be better off for it.”

Yes—the world will be better off without this impotent, morally bankrupt and strategically irrelevant organization.


Copyright 2003--United We Stand, Brandeis University