This week, Congress will vote on a bill to expand
the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing,
one-world globalists. But this time, the UN power grabbers aren't European liberals;
they are American neoconservatives who plan to use the UN to implement their
own brand of world government.
The "United Nations Reform Act of 2005" masquerades as a bill that
will cut U.S. dues to the United Nations by 50 percent if that organization
does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface, any measure that threatens
to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled:
in this case, reform "success" will be worse than failure. The problem
is in the supposed reforms themselves specifically in the policy changes
this bill mandates.
The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely
become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically,
the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN's official purposes
and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United
Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any
international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt
to overthrow a government an international casus belli for UN military
action. Until this point, a sovereign government retained the legal right to
defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such
activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that
country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime
regardless of the nature of that regime.
What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist
regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadin were fighting against the
Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?
The new message is clear: resistance even resistance to the UN itself
is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve
UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
This new policy is given teeth by creating a "Peacebuilding Commission,"
which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what
were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring
together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop-contributing
countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund, among others. This new commission will create the
beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict
anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the
picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic
support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN
Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically
embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end
of "UN reform"? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine
sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable
to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact
that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an
expanded UN that functions more "efficiently"?
The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed
system, or admit its failures as this legislation does and recognize
that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs
to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it
is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support "reform"
of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the
U.S. to withdraw immediately.