Intellectual Conservative Logo

We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.


Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions

















 
What Do We Do About the U.N.?
William R. Alford
4 April 2003

The Security Council’s vacillation over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns.

United Nations Flag


In word and deed, the Left continues to demonstrate a sincere conviction that George W. Bush represents a substantially greater threat to their interests than does Saddam Hussein. Prior to the current conflict, the Iraqi dictator had merely caused the death of thousands in two regional wars, killed thousands more of his own people by means of torture, summary executions and poison gas, torched over 600 oil wells and the like. Apparently, such atrocities have been far more acceptable than the President of the United States having the temerity of subjecting his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN.
 
Those who oppose Saddam’s forcible ouster/disarmament do not really object because of the possibility of heavy casualties and collateral damage. Many more people have died under Saddam’s manipulation of the UN sanctions regime than are likely to perish in the now-ongoing war. The recent Security Council’s vacillation over providing aid to innocent Iraqis further indicates that there are several other priorities that trump any humanitarian concerns.

The existence of independent and sovereign nation-states in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ is widely believed by UN supporters to be the principal cause of war. Additionally, a small overlapping cadre also holds that the optimal means to implement a Master Plan for society is via a singular global regime. Competition simply cannot be tolerated. The pervasive control and economic degradation that typifies Utopian government is far more difficult for the lumpenproletariat to accept if others are enjoying freedom and prosperity elsewhere.

This partially explains why any assertion of national policy that is not subordinate to the UN is greeted with such hysteria. Additionally, while the UN has on occasion been able to grudgingly acquiesce to defending against aggression, removing the offending dictatorship has always been beyond consideration. Having a government held into place by force replaced with one subject to popular mandate would set a frightening precedent for most member states, especially those in the Middle East.
 
The 1971 ejection of democratic Taiwan in favor of Mao’s China serves as a good benchmark illustrating the UN’s long-standing irrelevance. An international body comprised of illegitimate regimes cannot credibly claim legitimate authority. Moreover, such an organization can never serve the cause of peace, because it is dictatorship, not nationhood that makes war inevitable. History has repeatedly shown that tyranny cannot be peacefully appeased or ‘contained’ for long.

For several generations, much of humanity has been locked in a deadly conflict between the world’s various despotic regimes (and their appeasers) and those that demonstrably support the cause of freedom. It is a zero-sum game; the dictators have always known that. It’s time we in the Free World understand this also and act accordingly. Passivity has never brought security. We must have at least as much resolve to defend liberty as do those who are determined to destroy it.

An international organization that is dedicated to peace must of necessity be committed to strengthening and proliferating freedom. In such a body, member nations would be encouraged to develop their own versions of limited representative government. A collective umbrella of advice, financial aid and military protection would accordingly serve to shield emerging democracies as they develop.

A libertarian ‘hands-off’ approach may be feasible at some point, but for now the combined weight of freedom’s enemies is too great to go it alone. Therefore, the consolidated strength of all free people – diplomatic, economic and/or military – must be applied judiciously but relentlessly until the grip of tyranny is broken in every corner of the globe. Then and only then can there be a prospect of lasting peace and prosperity for all mankind. 

Cultural relativists would have us believe that tyranny is endemic to some societies. We must therefore leave the oppressed people of the world to languish under the heels of their dictators - they are not ready to be free. In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the President offered a differing view: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”

Email William Alford

Send this article to a friend