Food For Thought--Part II

I’m sorry, but I just can’t seem to stop picking on the United Nations. On an intellectual basis, from its very inception, every single word uttered by UN “diplomats” and every written word issued by the UN simply begs for analysis and dissection—looking for some form of tangible use and meaning. I’ll keep trying to find something positive, but the prospects look rather bleak at this point.

Revisiting my last posting, Food For Thought, I realize that I really didn’t fully develop my criticisms of the lack of any rational intellectual substance in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations. Well don’t worry everybody, because I’ve sharpened my knives and now I am going to take another cut at this topic this morning…here goes.

“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”

An admirable goal—but at the time that the UN Charter was written they weren’t telling us anything new here in the US. I seem to recall that we were sitting around essentially minding our own business on our own continent and the rest of the world couldn’t play pretty with each other. We were forced to step into both WWI and WWII and kick a little butt to straighten things out.

Leave it to the French and British at the end of WWI to lay the groundwork for the current mess in the middle east when they were forced to divest themselves of their “empires.” They accomplished this by apparently drawing some lines in crayon on the map, essentially ignoring thousands of years of ethnic history. (Remember that the ethnic Kurds are split between Turkey and Iraq and related to the indigenous population of neither country?)

Also, as I recall, by 1950 the UN had asked the US to wade hip deep into the Korean Peninsula on a so called “PEACEKEEPING MISSION” that wound up involving nearly a million more soldiers than were involved in WWI and killing over 33,000 of them in the process. The UN also tucked tail and ran, leaving the majority of the fighting and nearly all of the dieing to our troops. So much for saving us from “the scourge of war…”

"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"

Funny, but the Declaration of Independence states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The UN likewise says they have “faith in fundamental human rights.” But I ask you, what entity do they have faith in? They didn’t come out and say God or Allah or Bob Marley or Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, did they? Where do the fundamental rights mentioned by the UN come from? I suggest that the UN wants you to believe that your rights come from the UN, not from your country and certainally not from your creator.

Further, and this is the scary part, men and women have equal rights, just like NATIONS LARGE AND SMALL have equal rights? I’m sorry, but the only way nations can have equal rights is if the UN truly believes that they are the source of omnipotent power on our planet. Remember that we believe that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A little country like Belize has the right to sovereignty within their borders and the right to suck in as many tourism dollars as they can from all of us Rednecks and Yankees, but they are not “equal” to the US in the bigger world picture, no matter what the gold cufflink wearing Euroweenies and the UN weasel bullies say.

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

Again, this part sounds fine in theory to me, since our existing constitution provides for legally signed and ratified treaties to become part of our laws. Regarding international law, I say that they can set up “World Court’s” and pass international laws all day; they can make Kofi Annon’s birthday a world holiday when he dies—but that doesn’t mean that we here in the US are compelled to close the malls and federal buildings for the day and all pack a picnic basket and go out and celebrate. (Some people might actually celebrate Kofi’s death if it happens while he is in office.)

"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

blaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaa, blaa, blaa, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I suggest if the UN actually wanted “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” they would bring their massive intellectual and military pressure to bear on the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, and most of Africa to stop ripping off their own countries and oppressing their peoples.

It’s a no brainer as far as I’m concerned, but the UN is doomed to eternal fecklessness when it comes to actually accomplishing anything regarding human rights as long as they continue to embrace communism and socialism while despising democracy and capitalism. They can’t be serious— China, Cuba, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Pakistan, and the Russian Federation are seven of the twenty six members of the UN's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This is sort of like having Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahlmer on a US Commission for the Prevention of Mass Murder.

"And for these Ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and"

Does being tolerant involve looking the other way while billions of dollars intended for humanitarian relief in Iraq are diverted into the pockets of a brutal dictator for use in arms purchases and bribes for UN employees?

Does being a good neighbor involve raping young African girls and subjecting starving African women to having to provide sexual favors in order for them to receive from the UN the free food that we sent for their use?

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and"

Yeah, Right. Korea in 1950, followed by Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Croatia, and Rwanda in recent memory—some peace and security.

"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"

We can only accept principles that match our own. In the absence of principals, there are laws and ultimately things like guns and aircraft involved in the process. And let’s see, “institution of methods”—is that other words for 21 non-binding resolutions against Iraq? What a totally ineffective institution or method.

"to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,"

International Machinery—could that be another word for USS Abraham Lincoln, Ch-53 helicopter, Abrams M1/A1 tank? Or is international machinery built by John Deere?

"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."

There now, that about covers it. I think that I have done a pretty good job of proving that the UN was doomed to failure from its inception. Their mission statement was full of flowery words and high minded ideals, but it didn’t have any meat on its skinny carcass.

The Charter was signed on 26, June 1945.

To quote president Roosevelt, “A DATE THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.”