By McManus, John F.
The New American , Vol. 21, No. 11
As a nation that values its independence, we should never have joined the United Nations. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, virtually every person alive had been affected by the carnage and desperately wanted to avoid another global conflict. Leading advocates of world rule--in the media, among government leaders, and elsewhere--took advantage of this mind-set to spread the notion that virtually any proposal was worth trying in order to avoid a similar calamity in the future. In this atmosphere, world government planners presented the United Nations Charter to Congress and the American people.
The Charter was carried to Washington from the UN's San Francisco founding conference by State Department official Alger Hiss, who had contributed mightily to creating it and who was later shown to have been a traitorous agent of the Soviet Union. After only two days of formal hearings, the Senate approved the Charter by a vote of 89 to 2 on July 28. That cursory examination stands in stark contrast to the nine months of Senate deliberations that led to the rejection of the League of Nations charter in 1919.
Most Americans have been assured that the Charter is a "peace document." But the Charter is in reality a war document. Perhaps the most glaring indication that this is so appears in Article 25, which states: "Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
Doesn't that requirement place the Security Council resolutions above the U.S. Constitution? Defenders of the Charter insist that there's nothing to worry about because the U.S. can veto Security Council resolutions. But guarding our nation with the veto presupposes that its wielders in our government--a long parade of whom have championed the UN--will make policy decisions based on U.S. interests.
The consistent attitude held by those entrusted to lead our nation over the past 60 years has never been more clearly expressed than by recently replaced Secretary of State Colin Powell. A mere three weeks after assuming his office, he journeyed to UN headquarters in New York where he met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan and then told reporters: "With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we are bound by UN resolutions."
George W. Bush essentially repeated Powell's assertion when he addressed the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002. On that occasion he asked rhetorically, "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?" Answering his own question, he said, "We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced." One month later, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly approved granting Mr. Bush power to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
On March 20, 2003, the day after our forces invaded Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte delivered a formal letter to the Security Council that stated: "The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including its resolutions 678 (1990) and 687 (1991)." Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a UN operation from its outset. No one should ignore the fact that one obtains authorization from a superior, not an inferior.
Used and Abused
The United States has effectively become the UN's enforcer, and our own leaders are delivering America's military to the world body for that purpose. Under the Charter's Article 43, member nations are required "to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities ... for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."
While a few other nations send token forces for UN missions, our nation repeatedly sends huge numbers of men and amounts of materiel into UN operations. …