<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

WHY REPUBLICANS SHOULD SUPPORT THE U.N. 
In this article, Steven Schlesinger, of the World Policy Institute at the New School University (a Communist organization), has listed a number of reasons why the Republicans should stand up and support the U.N. Here are just a few examples of the U.N.'s "quite favorable" record:
First, the United Nations annually saves America taxpayer dollars by
helping to share the burdens of keeping the peace with other nations.
Right now, the United Nations oversees 18 peace operations in war-torn nations around the globe.

Would America wish to pacify and pay for all those problematic hotspots all by itself?

Second, the United Nations takes over rescue missions when natural
disasters strike, as happened recently with the tsunami in the Indian
Ocean.

Would Washington want to assume the responsibility alone to clean up after such horrific calamities?

Third, even in Iraq, where the United Nations once balked, it has since
then aided the United States in setting up an interim government, supervising recent Iraqi elections and assisting those elected to write a new constitution.

Would the Bush administration prefer no involvement by the United
Nations?

Fourth, for its internal flaws, the United Nations has usually acted to
remedy itself. Most recently, it created an investigative body under
the direction of a leading member of the American establishment, Paul Volcker, to probe the oil-for-food scandal.
This guy is basically saying that it's our responsibility to remedy every crisis in the "international community," so we should be glad that we belong to the U.N. because it helps us carry out these responsibilities. He even goes so far as to say that the U.N. "saves America (sic) taxpayer dollars" by helping to shoulder the costs of getting involved in various conflicts across the globe. Again, this assumes that we have a duty to pay for every conflict the U.N. intercedes in.

Doesn't this sound like someone trying to sell AmWay? Like AmWay, the U.N. has built itself up around the idea that the cost of membership is a non-factor in evaluating whether the join (or stay in). AmWay requires members to pay an exorbitant fee at the outset before the "savings" on its wholesale products kick in. The U.N. does the same thing, making the U.S. pay a disproportionate share of the price of both membership fees and enforcement actions before providing the "benefit" of a forum for subjecting the U.S. to the international equivalent of Festivus' "Airing of the Grievances."

Then, when it really matters, like our involvement in Iraq did, the U.N. sits on the sidelines pouting because its corrupt officials (or their sons) won't be able to afford a chalet in the Swiss Alps once the U.N.'s part of the "enforcement" action is over. And when their cover is blown, the U.N. is incapable of getting to the bottom of the problem without an independent U.S. investigation.

On second thought, maybe the U.N. really isn't like AmWay. Even though it's expensive and overpriced, AmWay at least provides something useful. I don't think the same can be said for the U.N.
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?