Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 19, 2003 / 15 Adar II, 5763

Robert W. Tracinski

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Don't defy the UN --- end it | If its handling of Iraq was a test of the United Nations, as President Bush has indicated, then the United Nations has clearly failed. But this should be no surprise, because yet another test of the United Nations--like yet another resolution giving Saddam Hussein "one more chance"--was completely unnecessary.

It is not that the United Nations has failed to show resolve or to live up to its charter. The problem is that the foundation of the United Nations is hopelessly corrupt.

By its very nature, the United Nations is directed by a consensus drawn upon a nonjudgmental mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. The United Nations' Security Council, whose judgment on Iraq was supposed to bind the United States, is composed of America and a few brave allies--pitted against cynical France, resentful Russia, hostile China, indifferent Mexico, and such enlightened powers as Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea. And the Security Council is just a microcosm of the United Nations itself, which contains a few civilized nations, a few big dictatorships, and a teeming rabble of corrupt and oppressive Third World regimes.

The U.N. charter declares that any "peace-loving" nation is eligible for membership. Yet its founding members included the largest dictatorship of the time: the Soviet Union--a nation at war with its own people and in the process of subjugating half of Europe. In the half-century since, the United Nations' membership criteria have not gotten any more selective.

Yet the defenders of the United Nations tell us that cooperation with this unsavory crowd is essential for America's well-being. In 2001, Madeline Albright declared, "The role of the United Nations is ... vital, because no other institution combines a comprehensive mandate with near universal representation." Which means: the United Nations is valuable precisely because it fails to exclude the world's worst regimes. Kofi Annan recently offered his pitch for the importance of the United Nations: "Let us all recognize ... that the global interest is our national interest." Which means: the interests of Russia, France, and China are identical with America's interests. Tom Friedman of the New York Times , who has spent recent weeks hyperventilating about America going it alone, tells us: "the key to managing this complex, dangerous world ... is our ability to stand united and with others." Which means: we are doomed unless we are propped up by the support of Angola and Cameroon.

All of the arguments for why we need a coalition of hostile powers and tin-pot dictatorships make no sense. Instead, they are the reflection of a deeper philosophical premise that the U.N.'s apologists refuse to question. The real basis of the United Nations is global collectivism--the belief that America's judgment and interests must be subordinated to the collective opinion of the "world community." When the Times' Friedman, for example, calls the attack on Iraq a "war of choice" that should not be waged without a vast international consensus, what he means is that the choice of how America defends itself ought to made by France, Russia, Cameroon, Chile--by anyone and everyone except the United States.

Yes, there is a value to cooperating with other nations--but only with free nations who share a commitment to standing up against the threats of terrorism and dictatorship. Any time free nations agree to subordinate themselves to a collective consensus with hostile dictatorships, it is only the free nations that lose--and it is only the dictatorships that gain. Indeed, the dictatorships run the United Nations. Within weeks of September 11, terrorist-sponsor Syria was invited to chair the United Nations' Security Council. Iraq and Iran are scheduled to trade chairmanship of its disarmament committee, while Libya is set to chair its human rights commission.

This is the same pattern Ayn Rand identified decades ago, when she compared the United Nations to "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors include[s] the leading gangsters of the community." Yet the only thing that can give such a commission any pretense at legitimacy is the participation of the city's upstanding citizens. Similarly, the only thing that gives the United Nations any legitimacy is America's cooperation: our might, our money, and our moral sanction.

America should not defy the United Nations on Iraq--we should do much more: we should withdraw from the United Nations altogether, letting that organization complete its collapse into a Third World debating society.

This would accomplish more than ending the latest round of diplomatic obstructionism. It would permanently unshackle U.S. foreign policy from the debilitating consensus of the corrupt collection of regimes who run the United Nations.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Robert Tracinski is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. Comment by clicking here.

03/06/03: The withering Blix-krieg
02/27/03: Dictatorship by the numbers
02/20/03: The worldwide epidemic of doctors' strikes
02/13/03: Bad economics in one lesson
02/06/03: Defending America's second front
01/29/03: The self-made state of the states
01/23/03: The Iraq charade
01/17/03: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
01/03/03: Goodbye to Gehry's bad joke
12/19/02: The Dems' sorry lot
12/11/02: Venezuela's lonely rebellion
12/05/02: Red-tape conservationists
11/27/02: The craven appeasement of Islam by the West
11/20/02: The real revolutionaries
11/14/02: President must still release himself from political trap
11/06/02: The election we deserve
10/31/02: The rush from judgment
10/23/02: The grand illusion
10/17/02: Loose lips in the pressroom
10/10/02: Permission to speak
10/03/02: The bear market makes the case for privatizing social security
09/27/02: Enron vs. Atlas Shrugged
09/19/02: Bush loses the war, again
09/11/02: What have we lost?
09/05/02: The case for "destabilization"
08/29/02: "Sustainable" development's unsustainable contradictions
08/22/02: The photographing of public art and architecture has apparently been deemed a threat to the Republic
08/14/02: Talk vs. ideas
08/12/02: Blood for oil
08/06/02: The welfare debate we're not having
07/30/02: Newsflash: Hauling CEOs away in manacles makes market soar!
07/23/02: Clearing the way for real airport security
07/16/02: The war on CEOs
07/09/02: Small-time crooks
06/27/02: Martha and the tall poppies
06/21/02: The post-colonialist famine
06/12/02: America's Maginot Line
06/07/02: Time's up for Pakistan
05/28/02: Freedom's defenders
05/22/02: What they knew and when they knew it
05/16/02: The mixed-economy monster
05/08/02: Conference in Cloud Cuckoo Land
04/25/02: The 'Palestinian" victims?
04/18/02: Why Israel must not withdraw
04/09/02: LIVE FROM RAMALLAH: The Theater of the Absurd
03/26/02: Campaign finance corruption
03/21/02: Who is George Bush?
03/14/02: The prophets of defeatism
02/21/02: The war on terrorism and the war on reality
02/14/02: Multilateralism's one-way street
02/05/02: The Powell Problem
01/29/02: A profligate and irresponsible distortion of congressional priorities
01/22/02: Liberal conspiracy theories
01/15/02: Fading shock and fading resolve
01/08/02: Argentina's intellectual collapse
12/31/02: The real person of the year
12/26/01: With friends like us ...
12/19/01: Ending the "peace process war"
12/11/01: The ruthless grip of logic
12/04/01: War powers without war
11/27/01: An Afghanistan Thanksgiving
11/20/01: The end of the beginning
11/06/01: The phony war
10/30/01: A war against Islam
10/23/01: The economics of war
10/16/01: A culture of death
10/11/01: An empire of ideals
10/01/01: Why they hate us
09/24/01: The lessons of war
09/20/01: What a real war looks like
09/17/01: America's war song
09/12/01: It is worse than Pearl Harbor
09/11/01: Out of the fire and back into the frying pan
09/05/01: The UN Conference of Racists
08/28/01: Waging war on profits and lives
08/20/01: The Bizarro-World War
08/08/01: The death toll of environmentalism
07/31/01: Where does America stand?
07/25/01: Barbarians at the G8
07/17/01: The carrot and the carrot
07/11/01: The real Brave New World
07/03/01: The child-manipulators
06/19/01: The scientist trap
06/11/01: The National Academy of Dubious Science

© 2003