Exit strategy from the United Nations / U.S. should form League of Democracies (WASHINGTON TIMES COMMENTARY) By Michael Taube 07/13/12)
WASHINGTON TIMES Articles-Index-Top
For years, pundits, politicians and columnists - including me - have
fiercely criticized the United Nations. This institution has become a
political cesspool controlled by totalitarian states and rogue
nations that despise democracy, liberty and freedom. It’s only
getting worse with time.
Look what’s happened during the past two weeks:
Syria is likely to get a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N.
Watch reported Iran will get a “top post” on the U.N. Arms Trade
Treaty conference, which it described as being “like choosing Bernie
Madoff to police fraud in the stock market.” Meanwhile, U.N. and Arab
League envoy Kofi Annan claimed to have had a “very candid and
constructive” meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
These are all ridiculous stories, but honestly, should we be
surprised? I’m not. The U.N. has a long, sordid history of electing
tyrannies and dictatorships to its various agencies, boards and
councils. For an organization that vigorously claims to support world
peace, it also vigorously - and controversially - supports countries
that don’t have the slightest grasp of this concept.
For example, Libya chaired the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 2003 -
and was a U.N. Security Council member in 2008 and 2009. Syria has
twice headed the U.N. Security Council, in June 2002 and August 2003.
Iran and Iraq were scheduled to co-chair a U.N. nuclear disarmament
conference before Saddam Hussein was toppled from power in 2003.
Additionally, North Korea - a major nuclear threat - headed the U.N.
Conference on Disarmament just last year.
Not to be overlooked is the U.N.’s repeated condemnation of Israel’s
policies for more than five decades while ignoring the terrible
slaughter of Rwandans and Bosnian Muslims in two bloody civil wars,
publicly supporting an antiterrorism conference held in Tehran, and
refusing to expel members that openly support and finance terrorist
groups. The list goes on and on.
The U.N. can use any excuse it wants to absolve itself from blame -
choosing countries alphabetically or accepting the verdict of voting
blocks - while it turns a blind eye to undemocratic countries. It
won’t work because the insanity of these choices is crystal clear.
Countries that don’t support human rights shouldn’t be allowed to sit
on U.N. human rights commissions. Countries that funnel money and
arms to terrorist organizations shouldn’t be allowed to chair U.N.
Security Council meetings. And countries that can’t be trusted with
nuclear weapons shouldn’t be allowed to lead conferences on nuclear
Moreover, the argument that Iran, Syria and North Korea need to
participate in diplomacy to become part of the democratic process is
nonsense. Eating fine food, drinking expensive champagne and making
idle chitchat in comfortable diplomatic circles is one thing, but
they also must have a willingness to accept democracy and freedom on
their own soil. Without these basic measures on the domestic front, a
country’s role on the international scene amounts to little more than
keeping up appearances. That’s what is happening at the U.N.
Let’s face facts. The U.N. is a broken-down and dysfunctional
organization that has been in a state of collapse for decades. In a
2004 guest column for the Economist, then-Secretary-General Kofi
Annan incredulously wrote that his organization “was born in a very
different time and designed for a very different world,” and
it “clearly needs far-reaching reform if it is to prevent and respond
to all the threats that we face today.” What nonsense. The U.N.
hasn’t figured out how to adapt to a changing world for more than 60
years - and it doesn’t deserve another 60 years to figure out where
it went wrong.
All democratic countries should immediately get out of the U.N. and
start a new organization, a League of Democracies. This group would
promote important principles such as liberty, democracy and
individual rights and freedoms. Global security and public safety
would be emphasized strongly. The need for free markets and trade
liberalization would be endorsed. Most important, the League of
Democracies would refuse or revoke membership for countries that
Who would lead this charge? It must be a major country for it to mean
something, and the United States would be an obvious choice.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s naive (and idiotic) policy to
negotiate with totalitarian states and rogue nations means he will
continue to defend the U.N. for the time being.
However, if Mitt Romney wins in November, he surely would be more
willing to criticize the organization. In the past, he has been
heavily critical of the U.N.’s position toward the United States, the
West, Judeo-Christian values and Israel. Maybe, just maybe, Mr.
Romney will take that important first step to unite Western
democracies and get out of the U.N. for good. Let’s hope so. (© 2012
The Washington Times, LLC. 07/13/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY