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
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 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.
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
this article to a friend