by Henry Lamb
October 25, 2004
There is a reason John Kerry is ahead in the polls in Europe and Canada. Both his rhetoric and his record indicate that he would subject policy decisions to a "global test." George Bush, on the other hand, has demonstrated that while he is willing to extend a hand to the international community, U.S. policy will not be subjected to the approval of any other nation or institution. This fundamental difference between the two candidates may be the most important difference for america's future.
The rest of the world is vitally aware of america's power, and recognize that the United Nations offers the only hope of containing, and controlling that power.
The best hope for the future of the world lies not in the United Nations, but in the rise of freedom and representative government. The United Nations touts its support of "democracy," but what they call democracy is vastly different from representative government.
at the U.N., as well as in most "social democracies," government is omnipotent, and allows democratic participation to the extent that pleases government. In a truly representative government, the people are omnipotent, and government is empowered, and limited by the consent of the people.
For more than a generation, the United States has been moving toward a social democracy, and away from the limited government created by the U.S. Constitution. John Kerry, and the Democrat Party, have led the transformation, with significant assistance from notable Republicans.
It is the american people--not a political party--who must keep america's representative government from falling victim to the utopian promises of socialism, by electing individuals who know the difference, and are willing to say "no" to both domestic, and international policies that erode freedom.
John Kerry says he would never allow the U.N. to veto american action. But in the same breath, he says that american action must meet a "global test." The invasion of Iraq met the test of the U.S. Congress, but it did not meet the "global test" at the U.N. Security Council. Does anyone really think that John Kerry would have taken action without the U.N.'s approval?
If the U.N. is to lead the world into the 21st century, it will be a world where freedom is granted, or denied, as it may suit the government. It will be a world of uncontrollable, official corruption, as evidenced by the unfolding Oil for Food scandal. In a world led by the U.N., governments are completely unaccountable, as evidenced by Kofi annan's refusal to release the Oil for Food records for independent review.
Everything in John Kerry's record indicates that this is the world he prefers. From his comments to the Harvard Crimson in 1971, in which he says he thinks U.S. troops should be deployed only with the approval of the U.N., to his most recent advocacy of a "global test," John Kerry always subjects the will of the United States to the will of the United Nations.
George Bush sees a different future for the world. He sees freedom and representative government as the best hope for security and prosperity for all people. More important, he has demonstrated the courage to break with the United Nations when its inaction, or policies suppress this hope.
His withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court--which John Kerry severely criticizes--and his willingness to remove Saddam Hussein without U.N. approval, suggest that america can offer a better alternative for the future than the U.N.'s vision for the world.
The elections in afghanistan are the first fruits of freedom, planted when the Taliban was removed from power. afghanistan is not yet a free nation, governed by the consent of all the people, but it is on its way. The interim government in Iraq is preparing for elections in January. Iraq is not yet a free nation, governed by the consent of the people, but--thanks to U.S. power - it has an opportunity to become a free nation.
John Kerry looks at both of these countries and condemns the U.S. for not letting the U.N. take the lead. But when he looks at the genocide in the Sudan, he doesn't condemn the U.N. for its inaction, he condemns the U.S. for not acting, despite the U.N.'s inaction.
The United States cannot entrust its future to the U.N., nor to a leader who values U.N. approval more than Congressional authority. If the world has any hope of discovering the power of freedom, the United States must exert its own sovereignty, and lead the world toward the principles of freedom upon which they may grow their own representative governments.