17 Comments

Gideon Reich:

Should America leave the United Nations?

Without a doubt! We should have withdrawn a long time ago.

Nov 20, 2007 - 11:56 am Louis Santacroce:

As a much younger man, driving through America, I would occasionally come across billboards bearing the message, “For God’s sake, get us out of the United Nations.” Most of these signs were sponsored by the John Birch Society, the organizaion that became synonymous with the image of rabid fear-mongers who, upon arriving home each night, checked under thier beds for the presence of Communists. They weren’t exactly friends of blacks or Jews, either; in fact, as recently as 1989, while traveling in Alaska, I was handed a Bircher publication by a little old lady who apoligized in advance for the racist and anti-Semitic thrust of some of the articles (”The rest of it is right on the money,” she insisted. Yeah, right). On the other hand, the man who tried to get the first version of the UN — the League of Nations — started wasn’t exactly known as a friend of Jews and blacks either, and he was President of the US (Woodrow Wilson)! Back in high school, we were taught about what a horrible thing it was that the then-Congress didn’t share Wilson’s “vision,” and voted the idea down. Nowadays, it appears that Congress may have known something those high school history writers didn’t. This is rather long-winded way of saying “OUT NOW!” On a lighter note, ending the UN would also leave NYC with a large vacant building which I’m sure contains plenty of office and (rent-controled) apartment space.

Nov 20, 2007 - 1:35 pm George Jochnowitz:

America can reform the UN by making repeated statements about its flagrant misdeeds. Public declarations by the President and members of the Cabinet get into the mainstream media. Government officials, from the President down, have remained silent. They feel they have enough problems already. But they should speak up. If they do, they will succeed.

Nov 20, 2007 - 1:40 pm Naftali:

Is it really a question? The more important question is should I sell or hold on to my stock in American Buggywhip Corporation–which I believe is a more relevant organization.

Or, we could say the UN is now useful for gambling and bookmakers, taking the over/under on just how corrupt an organization can possibly get. With Claudia Rossett on the job, it’s more exciting than the NFL.

And does the John Birch society still exist? With enough money to buy billboards? Oh please.

Nov 20, 2007 - 3:07 pm Anonymous:

The UN policy makers have given lip service lately to women’s priorities - Ban is hauling out a new campaign to get funds under the banner “reducing violence against women”. Now is the time for our State Dept to insist that the UN appoint western feminists and other feminists who have a demonstrated commitment to equal rights for women globally, to the UN boards and accounting agencies that control women’s funding.

The women appointed to those boards should swear to hold no other priority than to increase women’s personal security regardless of her birthplace, religion or lifestyle choices, increase women’s acess to media, increase her acess to education and employment.

Women appointed to develop gender based policy and distribute those funds should be committed first to accountability and transparency but also to establish these rights for all women: the right to equality and privacy, rule by secular law and legal system, freedom of religion and lifestyle, economic self-sufficiency, the right to hold property in her own name, and the right to personal autonomy in dress, speech and lifestle. You have to teach why it is in everyone’s interest to reorganize this way and the UN has no track record that ends in social change, documented and available for examination. Look up UNIFEM, otherwise titled, “The UN Trust Fund To Eliminate Violence Against Women”.

Maybe the UN could start reducing violence against women by investigating where UNIFEM funds have gone over the past ten years.

UNIFEM is the UN’s Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women which has received seven million dollars a year since its’ inception. This year the UN asked the funds be increased to Ten Million a year.

NOT ONE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER HAS BEEN BUILT WITH THESE FUNDS. No women have been armed and trained to defend other women. The funds have allegedly been spent for “education”.

I believe the funds have been diverted in the way the oil for food money was diverted - to bureaucrats.

The first need of women globally is security. There can be no security and therefore no human rights without all the rights guaranteed by the US constitution. We have to stop apologising and accept that those rights are our standard. If we are imposing our values on other cultures than we must be clear about naming them and demanding their acceptance for our participation.

Without security in your person, freedom from physical coerscion, there cannot be human rights only slavery. The only way to provide security is through domestic violence and single woman’s shelters that are defended by women who are armed, trained in self-defense and who can call in quickly reinforcements if necessary.

There are women who have organized in hard times in this country who know how to do it. These are the feminists who organized shelters in the early 1970’s. Chesler can be counted among them in the sense of distributing the reasoning behind the movement. . I am one who developed projects and programs.

Put women such as us in charge of the UN Trust Funds to Reduce Violence by appointing us to UNIFEM’s board. The US State Dept and the UN Ambassador must be influenced to care about women’s role in reconstruction after disasters and ther role in peacekeeping. To have good plans feminists who built institutional change in resisting countries must have decision making powers.

Stop Ban’s talking for publicity purposes and force him to give an accounting of how the UN is spending the money the UN Trust Fund gets to end violence against women.

Ban’s comments ARE just lip service to increase donations to the UN’s women’s funds and peacekeeping funds. They just spent tons of money for a phony “research” group to write a report saying that the US should increase its’ donations to UNIFEM. But the research group will not release any information about what UNIFEM projects have ACCOMPLISHED to date.

The UN actually does NOTHING substantive to actually reduce violence. Face it - all the boys are there at the table - think what agreements could be signed - what programs might be implemented TODAY. Each country might pledge to build 25 new battered women shelters matching funds from UNIFEM. Each country could pledge to accept women into their armed forces to be trained in firearms and defense of those DV shelters.

The US has built one DV shelter in Afghanistan and has planed 8 regional women’s centers which could include DV shelters but the democrats may not keep the pledge when they are in Office.

Google, the US State Dept.’s Office On International Women’s Issues and click on the Newsletter. I notice they are no longer talking about plans to build the centers. I don’t know if that is to protect the women or because they are no longer going to build.

In any case, do not make the mistake of believing all the hype from the UN. Remember how they said the US was starving Iraq’s babies and then we found out the UN was stealing all the oil for food money. You cannot trust what they say, only watch what they do. And it is their own all male peacekeepers who are also raping women in host countries and their NGOs who ignore those rapes instead of reporting them.

Nov 20, 2007 - 4:28 pm Smokey:

The UN absolutely refuses to provide an accounting, by an outside auditor, of how our money is spent.

There is only one reason for this: the UN is a nest of anti-American thieves, from top to bottom.

The U.S. must get OUT of the UN. The sooner the better.

Nov 20, 2007 - 7:20 pm David Thomson:

Why do we need a United Nations into today’s world of instant communications? Modern technology has perhaps turned it into a irrelevant organization. Our government must minimally marginalize the UN. It should be treated somewhat like the proverbial drunken uncle who is provided with enough liquor to keep him out of the way. Stories concerning the UN should be buried in the back pages of our newspapers. Let’s just stop taking it so seriously.

Nov 20, 2007 - 8:05 pm Jon-in-KZ:

Should America leave the United Nations?

Directly? No.

The UN currently serves the same purpose for the US as it does for every other country with a permanent seat at the Security Council: a veto over the idiocy of other’s meddling with their self-interest.

Better idea:
Stop paying to the UN and form a counter-UN–call it a “Liberty Alliance” if you wish–with more select membership, where the US’s friends can get together and agree on common grounds and actions. Set strict entrace grounds and keep the club small.

This is not a good option, frankly, but it is the “least-worst” option, in that it retains enough involvement in the UN to mitigate the damage that towering colosus could do as it collapses, while building something that will at least coordinate the like-minded.

Would such an Alliance grant “world legitimacy” to foreign adventures? –No, but when has the UN ever done so? There were strong dissenters even during the Korean and First Gulf “police actions.” Would it provide a more unified face for its members? –Definitely, and have power and influence in proportion to those members’ unity, at long last.

Jon-in-KZ

Nov 21, 2007 - 12:44 am Otter:

Hmmm. Out of the UN? Yes. Liberty Alliance? YES!

The US, Israel, Australia, Great Britain & Canada (if it isn’t already too late for the last two, Harper is doing very well so there IS hope). Japan? New Zealand?

The UN is too pro-islam, and in the next few decades if not sooner, that is going to be a Huge problem for everyone who isn’t already overwhelmed by it (so we can count out most of Europe, or I should say, Eurabia).

Nov 21, 2007 - 6:27 am Greenconsciousness:

Fern Sidman states:
“The United Nations Human Rights Commission originally billed the Durban conference of 2001 as a, “world conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Its goals were to address, “trafficking in women and children, migration and discrimination, gender and racial discrimination, racism against indigenous peoples and protection of minority rights”. What resulted at the Durban conference was nothing less than a politically hijacked agenda.”

And this is exactly what the UN is doing in their new campaign to “reduce violence against women” They use those words to RAISE FUNDS AND HIJACK AGENDAS. Because they have learned those words (women, violence, children, peace) work to generate funds.

However, feminists learned a long time ago how to use the man when he pretends to be a true believer. It is critical that we are able to use the US State Dept, the UN Ambassador and USAID or we cannot effect change at the UN. If we had control of these US agencies politically, we could demand that the US make conditional as part of our financial contribution the right for our country to hire the staff and control accountability of all money used by the UN to assist women and children. If the UN does not agree we could take all of our contribution and set up women’s projects for countries that do accept our conditions - we should do the same thing with our peacekeeper contribution. We had a good representative in Bolton but he did not use the strategy I am proposing and I never heard him speak about women’s rights.

Of course no one spoke for women at his appointment process. The left’s attacks on Bolton should have been met with arguments about the status of women globally and Bolton should have been charged with making the changes in staff and gender project accountability.

But that approach might interfere with the CIA’s use of the UN. Our own CIA is the real obstacle to reform and accountability at the UN. We may have a large part of that UN corruption ourself.

However now that U.N. Secretary-General Ban and the others at the UN are becoming feminists, the US should agree to the idea.
185 countries have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, while the United States has not. Many non-Western countries have social norms that justify abuse (such as genital mutilation, forced marriage, and polygamy), and “international standards” would vastly diminish the rights and benefits U.S. women now enjoy. At least this is the argument for our refusal to sign. The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has a U.N. monitoring committee which can force compliance with its’ goals. However at the same time we say that we will not lower our standards to sign the treaty we also claim that the treaty includes everything from unlimited abortion rights to rewriting schoolbooks to eliminate stereotypes and gender-specific references. Pakistan has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That’s the country where a tribal council ordered a young woman gang-raped to avenge her brother’s crime of being seen with an unchaperoned woman from another tribe. Gang rape is common in Pakistan. Nigeria has ratified the convention. That’s a country where women are stoned to death for the crime of adultery. Islamic law, called Sharia, calls for death to women who commit adultery, but a lesser punishment for adulterous men. Saudi Arabia has ratified the convention.

All these countries are eligible to sit on the convention’s monitoring committee of 23 “experts” who monitor “progress” and order compliance.

Why not demand that the women who receive courage awards from the US State Dept. sit on the convention’s monitoring committee of 23 “experts” who monitor “progress” and order compliance representing the countries which have oppressed them. SEE, the US State Dept website, Office of International Women’s Issues to view the bios of the women who receive “Courage” awards. Require the women write annual reports describing the obstacles they face. Set up projects so these monitors can act as conduits between women from free countries and oppressed women.

Donna Hughes has an article “Defeating the Woman-Haters,” FrontPageMazazine.com, January 17, 2005, stating that an insistence on women’s rights can undermine fascism. Her entire analysis can be overlapped on the situation at the UN and her solutions apply as well. Mark Steyn presents a version of Donna Hughe’s analysis in his new book called “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It” (Regnery, $28). He states that the majority of women in European battered women’s shelters are Muslim. He suggests that a serious push for women’s rights in the Islamic world could destabilize Islamic regimes such as Iran. Once again , I say, the same analysis applies to the UN. We should start now by educating those who are running for the presidency as to how the US should relate, as a feminist, to the UN. This would be the present task of the feminist movement, if we had a movement.

The UN started their campaign with a report issued in October by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called “In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women.” The report is said to be based on interviews with 24,000 women conducted by the World Health Organization. The “statistics are appalling.” Indeed they are. But it doesn’t follow that the solution is the report’s demand for “consultation with women’s groups” with “adequate funding streams” to develop “international standards” for all nations. I have already commented on the standards of most of the signers of the UN treaties.

The United States should come to the UN table with far more specific requests for policy control in proportion to compliance with the treaty.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the leading advocate of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is introducing a bill in the US Senate titled the International Violence Against Women Act, which would create millions of dollars of pork unless feminists in special committee control distribution of those funds and assess accountability. The I-VAWA’s stated mission is to carry out a campaign of policy advocacy and education, consulting with dozens of U.S organizations, grass-roots organizing, and working with strategic media partners. It echo’s Kofi Annan’s language. The same vague CIA language which creates the path for diversion of funds from women to the professionals in charge of its’ distribution.

We should force specifics use of funds into this US I-VAWA bill such as shelters and security projects, secular legal systems, and the right to equality of opportunity with men. Evaluation and accountability and transparency methods should be controlled by the bill itself.

The International Violence Against Women Act money will be used to lobby the U.S. Senate for ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women so we can insist on provisions as to who is seated on its U.N. monitoring committee to force compliance with feminist goals.

Nov 21, 2007 - 8:27 am B Dubya:

The UN failed, in part, because America has failed in its obligation to provide clear leadership in its governance.
A succession of pandering US administrations have been, like John Kerry and Barack Obama, too concerned about our image with the leagues of caravan robbers and murderers that make up the majority of the UN third world. We have not insisted on transparency nor have we properly guided the various UN programs with the set of ethics that the world needs to succeed in the UN endeavor.
John Bolton is probably the most plain and outspoken UN ambassador since the founding, but even he was not able to effect the slightest bit of shame for what is arguably the most corrupt political parasite since the late lamented Soviet Union.
We need to set up another organization of nations that desire liberty and fair government, in order for us to thrive in a world of ankle biting petty tyrants. We need to lead it, a coalition of the willing.
In summary, yes. Withdraw from the UN and expel the entire rump of what remains out of this country.

Nov 21, 2007 - 10:34 am Greenconsciousness:

Would the way to approach this dysfunctional relationship with the UN be to force those running for US president to discuss their policy in terms of reform or withdrawal?

I have never understood how the government dares to refuse to control the amount of air time the candidate must give to the public to explain and distinguish proposed policy AND programs. With the 30 sec debates held now because we have not regulated the public’s right to know, NO ONE knows what the candidate’s medical plans consist of systemically. We would need an hour on this topic alone to vote with informed consent.

Debates should be held solely to discuss the UN, specifically in terms of Israel, Funding for Women’s Projects, and Peacekeeping Project’s success at peacekeeping.

We want to hear presidential candidate’s UN policy especially in terms of funding accountability and control of gender crimes projects.

Do we sponsor forums and debates where candidates each have an hour to discuss foreign policy? The League of Women Voters might try but will LWVs accept questions from the affected segments of society?

We need debates solely about how the candidate’s State Dept will prioritize women’s issues in foreign policy development. Will the Office of International Women’s Issues have control of funding and direct the actions of the ambassador in regard to treaty protection for women’s rights?

We need single issue debates in this country. No one understands the candidates foreign policy because they have not had the time to discuss and differentiate their options.

How do we make this an issue? How do we present our issues to the candidates? Which organization will send in written questions and share the answers?

On my blog, I also discuss how immigration relates to feminist foreign policy, here we discuss how the UN relationship relates to U.S. foreign policy.

All of US foreign policy especially the funding of aid projects should be viewed from a feminist perspective because woman’s rights are fundamental human rights. That value, human rights, should be the foundation of the US foreign policy.

How can we make it so?

Nov 21, 2007 - 2:28 pm B Dubya:

“Greenconsciousness :
Would the way to approach this dysfunctional relationship with the UN be to force those running for US president to discuss their policy in terms of reform or withdrawal?”

Wow. You really get it, huh. Not.
It is not a problem defined by a dysfunctional relationship between the United States and an NGO that provides real value to the world and to this nation. The problem is that the UN is a completely corrupt and anti-American foreign cabal operating within our borders.
“a feminist perspective” may not permit you to consider that many of us in America feel that it is the height of irony that we should underwrite an organization that can find consensus in its membership only when it settles on another leveling of the playing field scheme(that translates into weakening the US at home and abroad, by any means available) or when its membership wish to cloak medieval hate and antisemitism under the guise of UN programs.

Nov 22, 2007 - 12:33 am Greenconsciousness:

Dubya

I agree with you but also think the UN is only a manifestation of the deeper problem. That is a lack of commitment in our own interaction with other countries to democratic human rights. Especially with the democrats who will take the presidency next year. The whole issue of foreign policy remains. The UN is only a manifestation of how we act in the world as a nation.

We are not going to withdraw from the UN although we may form alternative organizations and fund them with UN dues. When we do that, there will still be issues of women, children, global warming, Israel in the new organization.

Citizens have a right to expect that US foreign policy reflect our internal values and laws. Many of us disagree as to how this should be done. The democrats seemed to ignore the human rights of women in cultures where they are held as slaves when they were in power. The Republicans opposed the ERA and reproductive rights for women and oppose diversity in lifestyle, yet the Repubs have done more for the rights of Muslim women than the Dems. I do not feel this reflects the priorities of democratic women.

All these elements of US foreign policy are connected - I think we need to know if the next adm is going to commit to equal rights for women in the use of its aid money.

Withdrawing completely from the UN might not be such a good idea although starting alternative organizations is feasible to get things done. We have learned many lessons in how the strongman cultures work from their presence at the UN. It might be more informative for the people to let them watch the world by watching the UN function especially if we can get our govt auditors to monitor the use of our aid money.

The entire subject needs to be discussed at length. There are good arguments for attempting reform. However the democrats at this point seem to reject the idea that we need to reform the UN or even withdraw from financial contribution.

My real point is that I never hear calls for a coherent foreign policy to be articulated before the election - all I hear is talk about Iraq. The democrats choice to appease or stalemate slave holding countries threatens my civil rights. I expect my country to support Democratic countries in conflict with non-democratic nations. I do not think it is the business of the US to bring about a peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. I think we should withdraw from the process except as an ally to Israel.
But the Dem’s seem to feel that Hamas and Israel deserve to be treated equally.

I would like to know if Jimmy Carter speaks for Hillary. Because if he does it will not matter if we withdraw from the UN because our behavior in our foreign policy will remain the same as the UN’s behavior.

It is time to be clear about our human right expectations.

Nov 22, 2007 - 4:11 am Walt:

Just what is it we are supposed to be getting from our participation in the U.N., anyhow? I don’t expect there can be any serious attempt to reform coming from inside the U.N. As long as lots of money comes into the U.N. from the U.S.A. — life is good. On the other hand, no U.S. dollars, life wouldn’t be so good.

I figure we should cut the flow of cash and leave it up to the U.N. busies to try to figure out what they could do to encourage us to make life good for them once again. And if they just couldn’t figure out anything to do for us, well, we’d be pretty much getting what we are getting from them now, not a helluva lot, and we’d get it for free.

Nov 22, 2007 - 10:53 pm Helen Freedman:

Of course the U.S. should stop supporting the UN, and I would love to see that organization out of NY. The UN’s history of demonizing Israel - and America - is disgraceful and totally counter-productive to the ideal of a world body that would fairly and humanely consider the needs of its member states.

Nov 23, 2007 - 12:55 am John Wallace:

ANOTHER REASON TO END AMERICA’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE UN!

A special U.N. Human Rights investigator has been invited to come to the United States to probe racism and Islamophobia in America. During his three week visit, which started on May 19th, Mr. Doudou Diene, a Senegalese lawyer, will be visiting eight cities and will meet with various federal, state and local government officials, lawmakers and members of the judiciary. According to the United Nations, the purpose of his visit is to gather information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other related intolerance in America.

Mr. Diene is from Senegal, a country with a 95% Muslim majority that is also a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which makes up the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations. The 57 Islamic countries in this (OIC) bloc have a record of consistently voting against Western-style democracies and routinely condemning Israel. Mr. Diene has a personal history of focusing his human rights investigations mostly on Western-style democratic societies, issuing biased reports on alleged institutionalized racism and ‘Islamophobia’ in democratic countries such as Japan, Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland while ignoring real human-rights violations in the non-democratic Muslim countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

It should also be pointed out that the United Nation’s Human Rights Council includes some of the world’s worst human-rights violators, including China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. This same UN Human Rights Council has previously urged the United States to halt the post 9-11 racial profiling of Americans of Arab, Muslim and South Asian descent. At the same time, the United Nation’s Human Rights Council has ignored the fact that United Nations’ own peacekeepers in Africa are currently raping women in the Congo and have turned a blind eye to the man-made starvation of millions in southern Africa. In the arena of human rights, the United Nations is not only morally bankrupt, but it is rapidly becoming an irrelevant institution.

Doudou Diene has a clear record against freedom of speech and free expression when it comes to Islam. Mr. Diene had criticized Danish newspapers when they published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, accusing them of placing their country’s right of free speech above fighting religious intolerance and incitement to religions hatred against Muslims. It would appear that Mr. Diene would not be a supporter of the First Amendment of the US Constitution either.

As we all know, copies of the Quran are available in almost any bookstore in America and the book is studied in countless American universities, while Christians and other non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia are not even allowed to possess a copy of their holy books. The Saudi government routinely desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points coming into the country or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately. Just days before Crown Prince Abdullah recently met with President Bush, two Christian gatherings in Saudi Arabia were raided in Riyadh where Bibles and crosses were confiscated to be eventually incinerated. Why hasn’t the United Nations’ Human Rights Council sent Mr. Diene to investigate Saudi Arabia’s overt religious intolerance and persecution of non-Muslims? Why hasn’t the United Nations sent Mr. Diene to investigate the anti-Christian persecution and murders in Albania and Kosovo committed by the Muslim governments? It’s because a very clear double standard now exists at the United Nations.

American taxpayers contribute approximately $5 Billion a year to the operations of the United Nations, which devotes much of its double-standard energy to shielding dictatorial regimes, attempting to usurp individual nations’ sovereignty and promoting a future new world order in which UN bureaucrats will be in charge. Worst of all, the United Nations serves as an on-going forum for rampant anti-American and anti-democratic diatribes.

The United Nations has been granted no authority over the American people or our government because the UN does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. Americans need to stop thinking that the United Nations has some legitimate, legal authority over our country. It does not! Americans have a choice. We can follow the U.S. Constitution and protect our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty, or we can continue to contribute billions of dollars to a bottomless pit and submit to the unconstitutional interference by the United Nations in our country’s internal affairs.

In this particular investigation into racism and ‘Islamophobia’ in the USA, Mr. Diene is interfering in our country’s internal affairs and he is hardly an objective reporter or an impartial judge of racial conditions, xenophobia and other related intolerance in America. Indeed, Mr. Diene will find a great deal more racial, religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution in his own backyard in Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps, the time has finally come for Americans to rethink the value of our membership and participation in the United Nations. The evidence is clear. Not only should we get out of the United Nations, but maybe it is also time for the United Nations to get out of the United States as well.

I support the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007” (HR-1146), introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, to end the membership of the United States in the United Nations.

By: John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

May 20, 2008 - 8:36 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: