Totalitarianism at the U.N.
One Islamic-sponsored resolution after another is narrowing the concept of freedom around the world.
Yet engagement in the United Nations does not always result in success. Take this year’s anti-racism confab to be held in Geneva toward the end of next month. Known as “Durban II,” the U.N. conference promises to be a repeat of the September 2001 gathering in South Africa, which became, in the words of Claudia Rosett, “one of the UN’s more memorably ugly events.” In Durban, Colin Powell led a U.S. walk-out to protest, among other things, moves at the event to limit free expression. The Obama administration participated in preparatory events for the U.N.-sponsored hate-fest next month in Switzerland but eventually decided not to send delegates to the conference itself. Among other things, the conference’s “outcome document” urges the passage of anti-blasphemy resolutions.
We support the U.N., and the U.N. sponsors events like Durban II. So although American delegates will not be in Geneva next month, we are in fact helping others to erode our values. We may not be able to prevent the General Assembly from passing resolutions that attack our way of life — and which, incidentally, violate the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights — but we don’t have to help the forces of intolerance.
So instead of pretending that none of these U.N. conferences matter, it’s time we start defending fundamental Western values. And how do we do this? First step is to start issuing ultimatums to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. We should tell him the next time the General Assembly passes an anti-blasphemy resolution, we will refuse to make our yearly contributions until all such resolutions have been repealed. Next step is to stop attending all General Assembly meetings, including the much-watched opening session. Finally, if none of this works to get the U.N. out of the hate business, we should make it clear we will withdraw from the world body and force it to leave New York.
Is this course of action extreme? Yes, and it could lead to our isolation. Critics will say we are “shooting ourselves in the foot,” and they will undoubtedly be correct. Nonetheless, sometimes nations have to stand by their fundamental values whatever the cost, and now is one of those critical moments. After all, attacks against the notions that underpin Western society are real and gaining strength and legitimacy. So, we should not, at this time and perhaps never, participate in any organization that undermines us. The U.N. is a great idea, but the First Amendment is an even better one.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
38 Comments
1. GDT:I have to take exception to the last sentence in this post. The UN is NOT a great idea. It COULD be, if it were viewed as something of a universal embassy to the world, creating lines of communication between all countries that would be available when all others failed. That may have been the point originally. That ceased to be the point of the UN quickly. Many (even many in the United States) view the UN as something of a world government. That is NOT a good idea. The one country, one vote, gives banana republics with a population smaller than Tacoma and terrorist sponsoring theocracies the same influence as free producer nations with populations in the 10s and 100s of millions (the ones who actually pay the bills at the UN). Why in the world is that a good thing? Why would we want membership in a deliberative body where we vote (along with Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and North Korea) on what is best for the world? Why would we remain in such a body for 15 seconds after the first anti (Islamic) blasphemy resolution? How can we continue paying most of the tab for something that has become a forum to oppose us?
I understand the need to engage other countries, but why in the world would we give them unearned influence over us? Tell me, why again is the UN a good idea?
Mar 3, 2009 - 5:08 am 2. Canuckistani:Until it’s required that one must be a democratic country to be a member of the “democratic” UN, the whole process is ridiculous. I’d tell them to find a new place to hang out. Maybe Pyongyang or Riyadh.
Mar 3, 2009 - 6:09 am 3. Craig:“It’s one thing for Muslims to destroy their own societies, but it’s quite another for them to destroy ours.”
You said a mouthful there. And a hearty thanks to Christopher Hitchens’lexical aplomb.
Mar 3, 2009 - 6:41 am 4. elvis:This is the result of that insidious virus, political correctness,injected to and infecting all the nooks and crannies of western society. It has so seriously weakened the will of good people that they
Mar 3, 2009 - 6:56 am 5. Laura:are afraid to say anything these days about evil. These evil people at the UN know this, and so do the totalitarians that try to rule us here.
Can you imagine the outrage here and abroad, if the United States wanted a resolution that stated that taking Jesus Christ’s name in vain would be a crime?
And yet, we are afraid to stand up to this foolishness.
Speak out now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t it now considered a hate-crime to use the word Nigger in public or in print? I’ve been called many names by black anti-semites in my life, but if I retaliate with name-calling, I can get arrested. Does that make sense?
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:06 am 6. Geofizz:This article is even more disturbing within the context of “sovereignty” being redefined.
From John Bolton’s “The Coming War on Sovereignty”:
(http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/the-coming-war-on-sovereignty-15080)
“Global leaders,” the Plan insists, “increasingly recognize that alone they are unable to protect their interests and their citizens—national security has become interdependent with global security.” The United States must therefore commit to “a rule-based international system that rejects unilateralism and looks beyond military might,” or else “resign [our]selves to an ad-hoc international system.” Mere “traditional sovereignty” is insufficient in the new era we have entered, an era in which we must contend with “the realities of a now transnational world.” This “rule-based international system” will create the conditions for “global governance.”
Enter the UN, with it’s islamo-centric leanings…
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:24 am 7. Peter the Bubblehead:The US should get out of the UN. It has been nothing but an anti-US, anti-Israel body for the last decade or more.
If the US left the UN and tell them they can move their headquarters to Geneva or Tripoli or Tehran or someplace that cares and would welcome them with open arms, the UN would collapse financially within 6 to 12 months, and good riddance.
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:37 am 8. Peter the Bubblehead:Not to mention, with the UN gone out of New York, think of how many parking spaces that would open up!
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:40 am 9. Michael:We should go and add to the resolution clauses that ban blashpmy of Christian and Jewish, Hindou and confusionism precepts and condemn/outaw the death sentences of countries that forbid conversion from Islam to anything else. When that is shouted down and after the riot then we pull the plug.
The UN serves no useful purpose and hasn’t in 60 years.
Mar 3, 2009 - 9:19 am 10. Trainwreck:Unfortunately, the UN is imbedded in the worldview of the Western elites and the powers-that-be, as represented by the Obama administration. Western civilization is now a rotting near-corpse infested with the AIDS virus. Soon, to defend yourself against Islamic terror will be considered a crime against humanity, persecuted in the UN world court, where any offense to Islam is verboten.
Mar 3, 2009 - 9:31 am 11. JDubya:The UN will likely replace the sovereignty of the US in the near future, and as long as the leftists elites are in control and ever more brainwashed masses are being spit out of our educational instutions, indoctrinated with hate for their own culture and seeing no reason to defend our way of life, this change will be welcomed. After the next terror attack, anyone linking terror to Islam will be charged with a hate crime.
I think the best thing to do with the UN is restrict voting to:
1. ONLY COUNTRIES THAT PROMOTE A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS in their elections. No monarchies, no theocracies, no dictators.
2. Elections MUST allow equal voting access to all citizens over the age of 18.
3. All votes are the same standing. No 1 Male = 3 Female, etc. 1:1.
If these countries do not allow real elections in their countries, why should they have the freedom to vote on our dime?
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:11 am 12. Gordon Chang:GDT, I hate to be in the postion of defending the U.N, especially these days. As an initial matter, we do have more influence than others because we sit on the Security Council with a veto and because we are more powerful than the other four veto-weilding members.
The U.N. is a good idea because, from time to time, it is able to resolve conflicts and legitimize constructive action. So that’s why the U.N., at least in concept and sometimes in practice, is a good idea.
That said, one could write a book on what is wrong with the U.N., and many have. As noted, it is time for us reassess the institution and see whether we still belong in it.
And thanks for your important comment.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:31 am 13. Gordon Chang:Canuckistani, it won’t be Riyadh because of the absence of liquor.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:32 am 14. Gordon Chang:Craig, thanks for the encouragement.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:33 am 15. Gordon Chang:Elvis, yes!!!!!!!
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:34 am 16. Gordon Chang:Laura, no, I suppose it’s not fair, but it’s best to try to meet meaness with kindness and reason. It just drives the name-callers nuts.
P.S. It is also handy to have a firearm, just in case.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:37 am 17. Gordon Chang:Geofizz, thanks for referring to that important article.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:39 am 18. Gordon Chang:Peter the Bubblehead, yes, the U.N needs the United States more than the other way around.
And New York could use the parking, although I suppose the site should be preserved as it is today so that we have a reminder of multilateralism gone bad.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:41 am 19. Gordon Chang:Michael, the U.N. is the organization that confronts North Korea across the DMZ, and some of its subsidiary organizations perform valuable services to the global community (although these services could be performed in stand-alone organizations). The U.N. is not a total waste of time, but I am on board with the general thrust of your comments.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:45 am 20. Gordon Chang:JDubya, we need a coalition of democracies, preferably outside the U.N. Thanks for talking up this important concept.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:47 am 21. Gordon Chang:Trainwreck, the one feature distinguishing Western socieities is that they adapt. So all is not lost.
Mar 3, 2009 - 10:49 am 22. Marc Malone:57 States called for it? Maybe these are Obama’s 57 States! Finally, mystery solved!
I’m okay with the U.N., as long as the member nations pay a large, flat rate for membership. That’d exclude all the non-producer nations, or force their allies to pony up for them. Then, that money’d be spent here in the U.S. Think balance of trade.
Seriously, the U.N. has proven itself useful at rare times. We just need a new one comprised only of the civilized nations. The way it’s structured now engenders the crazy dangerous notion of one-world governement. We need to stay away from the idea of including everyone.
Mar 3, 2009 - 11:54 am 23. GDT:Gordon,
Mar 3, 2009 - 12:56 pm 24. USpace:I respectfully disagree with your analysis of my analysis. We do not gain increased influence through the UN. The UN gains increased influence through us. If we leave the UN – it dies. We are still the world’s lone superpower. We remain an economic superpower (the current crisis notwithstanding – our current troubles are measured by our own extremely high standards, by world standards we remain the richest of the rich.) Small countries want an association with us. That contact should be earned – via conduct. By pretending to be “equal” with monarchies the size of Reno NV we diminish ourselves in the eyes of the world. The US is an exceptional and unique place. This isn’t an “America centric” view – it is a simple statement of fact. We know it, the world knows it. Diminishing ourselves so to “get along” with countries that are both the antithesis of everything we believe AND who would like to see us dead accomplishes nothing.
.
It’s good the Obama Admin. won’t attend Durban II, but then again, if they went to argue and debate and obstruct they might influence the vote in freedom’s favor. Unfortunately, I can never imagine them threatening the UN with withholding fees or kicking them out of the USA.
There needs to be more talk of a much more exclusive ‘United Organization of True Democracies’. Something very difficult to get in, and to stay in.
.
here’s an absurd thought -
our Supreme Gods are
placing BIG bets on man
on whether humans on Earth
Mar 3, 2009 - 1:22 pm 25. Gordon Chang:will submit to tyranny…
.
Marc Malone, a review of the dues structure is desperately needed. And the idea of high dues is not a bad one, whether you were serious or not.
Mar 3, 2009 - 3:27 pm 26. Gordon Chang:GDT, I certainly agree that the U.N needs us more than we need the U.N, but sometimes we do need it. The Security Council shows that not all member states are equal. I don’t disagree with the rest of your analysis.
There is a place for the U.N, but there is also a need for an organization of democracies, as several have noted above. The new organization should be the focus of our diplomacy, not the U.N.
Mar 3, 2009 - 3:31 pm 27. Lynn B.:We pay 37% of the UN operating costs and put 57 million additional into the World Food Bank. The OIC pays less then 12% (57 countries) and gave the World Food Bank app. 50 thousand. Iran now chairs the Un Internatonal Developement Program. Libya heads the AU. 175 pending investigations for alleged crimes by UN people have been halted by not renewing funding for the project. Peacekeepers can’t and won’t fulfill UN resolutions and have failed miserably in their missions. I really see very few redeeming qualities to keep the US or any other democratic country involved in the UN.
Mar 3, 2009 - 7:16 pm 28. vivo:The UN is a good idea. The problem is when a country or group or countries try to manipulate a situation. Just like in any democracy, the voice of reason may not be in the majority. We need scientists to come up with a better system.
Mar 3, 2009 - 8:42 pm 29. Michael:The UN is full of dictatorships run by individuals or small groups who’s only intent is to enrich themselves and their cronies. So in the UN they work at enriching themselves and their cronies. All other accomplishments are either necessary to further their abilty to maintain their own power or are purely accidental.
As long as most of the world suffers under these thugs there is no way to fix the UN.
All the good the UN does around the world could be done 10 times better by charities. The UN beauracracy is largely made up of men from these dictatorships who are intent on enriching themselves. On top of that most of the UN is managerially challanged and what is actually maked for relief is frittered away in beauracratic inefficiency.
Mar 4, 2009 - 7:56 am 30. Gordon Chang:Lynn B, the U.S. needs to reduce its contributions no matter what happens with Durban II or the anti-blasphemy resolution. Thanks for highlighting the disproportionality issue.
Mar 4, 2009 - 9:43 am 31. Gordon Chang:vivo, not even scientists can help us with this one. I vote for people with common sense.
Mar 4, 2009 - 9:44 am 32. Gordon Chang:Michael, you wrote: “As long as most of the world suffers under these thugs there is no way to fix the UN.” That’s probably right. The world is not the way we would like it to be, and the ultimate issue is whether the U.N helps or hurts our attempts to maintain the international system. So far, the U.N. is not so bad that it is intolerable, but it’s getting very close.
Mar 4, 2009 - 9:47 am 33. Peter the Bubblehead:Hey Gordon,
I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to respond to the comments posted on this thread.
It’s nice to know the commentators actually care what their audience think and suggest.
Mar 4, 2009 - 10:29 am 34. David W. Lincoln:~Peter
Why are those countries which receive a passing
Mar 5, 2009 - 9:30 am 35. Gordon Chang:grade from freedom house continuing to squander time and money to prop up those who want to drag
down those countries to their level, instead of
accepting a hand up to the level of these countries which deserve to command respect.
Peter the Bubblehead, thanks. I learn a lot from those who comment.
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:25 am 36. Gordon Chang:David W. Lincoln, I think the reason is that most everyone believes that, through engagement, we can change autocrats. This is the byproduct of end-of-history theories that we already won.
I agree with you–we should help more worthy nations instead.
Mar 5, 2009 - 11:28 am 37. Chaz706:Is this course of action extreme? Yes, and it could lead to our isolation. Critics will say we are “shooting ourselves in the foot,” and they will undoubtedly be correct. Nonetheless, sometimes nations have to stand by their fundamental values whatever the cost, and now is one of those critical moments. After all, attacks against the notions that underpin Western society are real and gaining strength and legitimacy. So, we should not, at this time and perhaps never, participate in any organization that undermines us. The U.N. is a great idea, but the First Amendment is an even better one.
Sometimes a city on a hill must stand alone.
Mar 5, 2009 - 1:27 pm 38. vivo:31. Gordon Chang:
“vivo, not even scientists can help us with this one. I vote for people with common sense.”
That’s exactly what I meant. A system that could be extracted from people’s minds and reflect their common sense feelings and truth. Something like a lie detector but less elaborate, and as functional as a Blackberry.
Crazy? Everything is possible these days.
If found, you just have to convince the ACLU . . .
Mar 5, 2009 - 10:14 pm