The United Nations
• refuse to ratify or fund the proposed International Criminal Court, • be wary of defining away sovereignty as a barrier to military intervention, • oppose granting the United Nations war-fighting functions or establishing an on-call UN army, and • withhold payments to the UN until the secretary general demonstrates clearer progress in eliminating inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has steadily sought to increase the scope and strength of its authority. Recent UN initiatives have been aimed at forming a standby UN army, creating an international criminal court, subordinating national sovereignty to humanitarian concerns, establishing UN protectorates, introducing a global tax on international commerce, redefining human rights to encompass wealth redistribution, and promoting an environmental agenda that could trump private property rights. That raft of proposals is not only contrary to the American tradition of limited government but could well pave the way for the United States to become mired in still more internecine and far-flung conflicts that have nothing to do with U.S. national security.
That is not to say, however, that the UN shouldn't have any role in international affairs. The organization did help to end the armed conflicts in El Salvador and Mozambique and to supervise elections that brought independence and democracy to Namibia. But it must be remembered that the UN is an association of the world's governments—not an association of the world's peoples. As such, it should not be granted the decisive authority on the global stage.