U.S. Should Largely Ignore What U.N. Says To Do
Its social agencies, such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF are exceptions, but by and large the United Nations is an unsuccessful and even corrupt institution which likes to lecture the United States on the War on Terror, but hasn't effectively stood up against genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, Dar fur and elsewhere.
A UN "Committee Against Torture" is calling upon the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo, Cuba, prison camp, but it has not a word to say about brutal sectarian killings in Iraq that are sending hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing to other countries. It didn't say anything either when Afghanistan was trying to execute a man for the "crime" of converting to Christianity. It didn't chastise the King of Saudi Arabia when he ordered the pictures of all women removed from his country's newspapers. Its whole idea of human rights is highly selective, stacked against the Western democracies.
The UN "Human rights" bodies are a pack of hypocrites, if not positive scoundrels. Assuming they should continue to exist, and I even have my doubts about that, then the least the U.S. can do, is not to listen to them.
There has been extensive documentation about the corruption of the UN food for oil program in Iraq before the war, with kickbacks going to sundry officials and bystanders such as the son of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General.
Need we state again, that the United States is doing a service to the world opposing Middle Eastern terrorists. It is perhaps less obvious that Guantanamo is the best means to do this, but in the absence of other palatable alternatives, Guantanamo should be kept open. Its prisoners include many dangerous people, who, if given the chance, would be flying airplanes and all their passengers into tall buildings, or the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
In the Middle East itself, the UN record is nothing short of atrocious. I believe this organization's desperate weakness is one of the major factors in keeping the Holy Land and other parts of the region in a constant state of turmoil. It has failed to side with those battling the terrorists, and it has failed to do anything material itself against them. As suicide bombings spread to new places, UN "human rights" bodies have done and said nothing.
It is worth recalling that the late Sen. Hiram Johnson of California, just before his death in 1945, was one of the few votes in the U.S. Senate against ratifying the charter that began the UN. Just like the League of Nations that preceded it, the UN has been paralyzed most of the time in terms of strong action to keep peace in the world. It is true it backed the U.S. in the Korean War, but this was only because Russia had, at that moment, withdrawn from UN affairs and the Communist regime in China had not yet displaced Taiwan as the Chinese representative there. Otherwise, even this, resistance to a blatant invasion, would have been vetoed.
Now, in the matter of the Iranian threat to obtain nuclear weapons, the UN is again paralyzed.
We cannot afford to make the same mistake Russia did and withdraw from an organization which, then, might take direct action against us. The U.S. veto there is an important safeguard.
But we should not, and we must not. listen to them or take their advice as to how to best defend America.
A UN "Committee Against Torture" is calling upon the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo, Cuba, prison camp, but it has not a word to say about brutal sectarian killings in Iraq that are sending hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing to other countries. It didn't say anything either when Afghanistan was trying to execute a man for the "crime" of converting to Christianity. It didn't chastise the King of Saudi Arabia when he ordered the pictures of all women removed from his country's newspapers. Its whole idea of human rights is highly selective, stacked against the Western democracies.
The UN "Human rights" bodies are a pack of hypocrites, if not positive scoundrels. Assuming they should continue to exist, and I even have my doubts about that, then the least the U.S. can do, is not to listen to them.
There has been extensive documentation about the corruption of the UN food for oil program in Iraq before the war, with kickbacks going to sundry officials and bystanders such as the son of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General.
Need we state again, that the United States is doing a service to the world opposing Middle Eastern terrorists. It is perhaps less obvious that Guantanamo is the best means to do this, but in the absence of other palatable alternatives, Guantanamo should be kept open. Its prisoners include many dangerous people, who, if given the chance, would be flying airplanes and all their passengers into tall buildings, or the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
In the Middle East itself, the UN record is nothing short of atrocious. I believe this organization's desperate weakness is one of the major factors in keeping the Holy Land and other parts of the region in a constant state of turmoil. It has failed to side with those battling the terrorists, and it has failed to do anything material itself against them. As suicide bombings spread to new places, UN "human rights" bodies have done and said nothing.
It is worth recalling that the late Sen. Hiram Johnson of California, just before his death in 1945, was one of the few votes in the U.S. Senate against ratifying the charter that began the UN. Just like the League of Nations that preceded it, the UN has been paralyzed most of the time in terms of strong action to keep peace in the world. It is true it backed the U.S. in the Korean War, but this was only because Russia had, at that moment, withdrawn from UN affairs and the Communist regime in China had not yet displaced Taiwan as the Chinese representative there. Otherwise, even this, resistance to a blatant invasion, would have been vetoed.
Now, in the matter of the Iranian threat to obtain nuclear weapons, the UN is again paralyzed.
We cannot afford to make the same mistake Russia did and withdraw from an organization which, then, might take direct action against us. The U.S. veto there is an important safeguard.
But we should not, and we must not. listen to them or take their advice as to how to best defend America.
posted by Ken Reich at 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home