John Bolton the former Ambassador to the United Nations recently gave a speech in Phoenix Arizona, where he made some very pertinent comments regarding America and the United Nations. After reading his speech it is easy to see why the ultra-left hated Bolton and eventually forced him out once they controlled congress. Bolton makes it very clear that the UN does not meet its initial objectives but is truly a useless organization. I think most Americans realize this, or at least those who think critically think that the US would be better off leaving the UN altogether. It seems that Jeanne Kirkpatrick another former UN Ambassador when asked why the US didn’t pull out of the UN said “Because it is more trouble than its worth.” Bolton exacerbated the left by adding that at times the UN can be an effective instrument of American foreign policy. While that statement may seem accurate but innocuous to most of us, it is like throwing gasoline on to flame for the left, because the real devotee’s of the UN think that everyone’s foreign policy should be subservient to the UN. Of course no one’s is and every UN member tries to further its own interest but the only country criticized for that is the US.
However, Bolton points out a much more serious activity of the UN and one not really visible or even discussed in the US and that is what our European “friends” call “norming”. It is likely that you have not ever heard this term used although it is essentially what Al Gore and the liberals worldwide condemn America and President Bush for not doing. “Norming” is the belief that the US should base its decisions on some sort of international consensus, rather than making its decisions according to the democratic procedures established in the US Constitution. In fact at an international conference on law, a European University professor stated “That the problem with the United States is its devotion to its constitution over international norms”. This is a typical attitude found in Europe where they despise American strength as a dependent relative despises the one who supports him in his self-inflicted poverty. But exactly what is “norming” according to the UN?
Essentially the advocates of “norming” describe it as “one nation, one vote” which sounds very democratic, except what that means is that America and American laws would be subservient to the UN and it would be the UN resolutions that would prevail over the American Constitution, for example the question of the death penalty. This has been a subject of controversy in the US for decades and opinions have swung both ways. Some states have death penalty laws while others do not and this subject has been taken to the Supreme Court which has modified the laws so the death penalty can be handed out in appropriate cases. Regardless of whether you are for or against the death penalty the fact is that this has been handled within the Constitutional framework of the US. But with “norming” this case is closed and no discussion is either needed or allowed, the UN has decided against it. When the current Secretary of the UN General Assembly Ban Ki-moon stated that the question of the death penalty was up to each country to decide he was almost run out of town on a rail because this question had already been decided by the UN – meaning no country in the eyes of the UN could inflict the death penalty. Is it any wonder why the UN acts against American interests or why so many Americans want us out of the UN?
This was the same kind of response the US received regarding gun control. The UN wants to control the flow of light weapons and as part of this they want to forbid individuals from private ownership of guns. When it was pointed out that the US could not go along with this resolution because it violated our Constitution this was treated as some sort of specious notion and that the US Constitution had no relevance to UN resolutions. While the UN can quickly come to agreement on resolutions that control the actions of the US, they are much less capable – in fact totally incapable – of reaching consensus on such things as “terrorism”. Of course the fact is that the majority of the members of the UN are Islamic, have large Islamic populations, or sympathize with Islamofascism so it is no surprise to find that the UN believes there is “good terrorism” and “bad terrorism”. This is no surprise since many of the members see the US as a terrorist country and the Islamofascists as “freedom fighters”.
The fact that the UN is totally corrupt organization is really no surprise and the oil for food program under Kofi Anan was a vivid example of the endemic corruption in the UN. When Kofi Anan was forced into examining the UN program Paul Volcker found that the oil for food scandal was only the tip of the iceberg and he recommended a whole series of reforms not the least of which was an independent audit of UN Programs. Well the UN Budget Committee voted 2 to 1 against any kind of independent audit. The countries voting for it provide 90% of the UN funding (the US provides 22%) but were out voted.
The UN was supposed to have provided support and guidance toward peace and liberty but it has simply failed on all fronts. It has not prevented any war, it has not been successful at peace keeping, just as it has not been successful in enforcing any of its resolutions. It failed to enforce the resolutions against Saddam Hussein just as it has failed to enforce its resolutions against Iran. The UN is a failed organization and to continue funding it is not in America’s best interest. John Bolton maintains that the US should only fund what we want and then insist that we get precisely what we pay for. This is unlikely to happen so if the US cannot withdraw from the UN at the very least we should no longer just give them a bucket of unencumbered money to siphon off into the hands of corrupt bureaucrats.