NATO or Naturally America Takes Over

Although I am a great admired of Harry Truman the man, I am much less impressed with some of his legacy, namely the United Nations and NATO. Like so many progressives (read socialist or neo-Marxist) I’m sure he labored under the impression that he was establishing a foundation for world peace. Many at the time thought that WW II was a result of the failure of the League of Nations and America’s failure to join. This of course is the typical reaction by France and Britain as they refuse to ever assume any responsibility for the disasters they created in Africa and the Middle East with their arrogance and meddling. Their unjust treaty of Versailles was the direct cause for the rise of Hitler and the desire of the Germans to retaliate against their oppressors. It is highly unlikely that even if America had joined the League of Nations WW II could have been avoided. But certainly President Truman must have felt that his United Nations would provide a forum to prevent any future wars. Of course he was proven wrong even in his life time.

The United Nations has morphed into a corrupt organization that is nothing more than an impotent debating club where nothing ever gets done and their peace keeping activities not only have universally failed to keep the peace but seem to have no function whatsoever other than cosmetic. This organization has become dominated by Islamic States led by strongmen, Presidents for Life, and terrorists like Arafat masquerading as heads of state. Yet the United States continues to participate in this charade which is bad enough but the US is expected to pay for its demonstrable anti-American activities. This is a failed organization that has clearly outlived its usefulness, must like that other misguided dream of Truman’s – NATO.

NATO was created in 1949 for the collective defense of Europe – aimed primarily at defending Europe from the Russian colossus to the East. In fact the role of NATO was summarized by the first Secretary General as “the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. While that may be a flippant remark it is also painfully accurate but in that accuracy also lies the truth that it is no longer relevant, a burden on the US military, and a constant irritant to the Russians. Russia is no longer the USSR and generally thought of as no longer being a super power, but that is just whistling in the dark. Russia is and has always been powerful and while it is distracted now as it grows into something similar to a democratic state, it is not a military threat to Western Europe.

The Germans have grown into a major economic power with an invisible military. Germany dominates Western Europe and the Euro-zone economically while France and the majority of Western Europe sink into their socialist quagmire of entitlements, over taxation, and irrelevance. So the only real function of NATO is to “keep America in” meaning that NATO is in fact just the United States acting under the euphemism called NATO. It is America that funds NATO and it is American soldiers who act under its banner. The military and defense budgets of Europe are virtually non-existent and their military is hardly capable of defending themselves much less providing any meaningful support to any joint activity like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. The military support coming from these NATO nations is at best cosmetic because with the exception of the UK they do not conduct active military operations in any major way. In general their troops are kept away from any real danger, because their governments can barely accept any military involvement and they participate only to keep the American money flowing into their military and NATO.

The fact is that America can no longer nor should any longer be expected to keep the peace world wide. If Europe needs defending then the Europeans should do it themselves and pay for it themselves. If South Korea needs to be protected from the North then they should do it with their troops and their money. If they think they need UN protection then let the UN field and pay for the troops not America. What purpose is served by maintaining a major military presence in Germany and Japan? These represent a drain on the American treasury and a misuse of American Troops that could be used more effectively in other places. NATO has seen its day and that day has past. It is an expensive anachronism and no longer serves America’s interests.

America and the UN

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.