by Henry Lamb
November 22, 2004
Every day, a new outrage emerges from the United Nations bureaucracy. Kofi annan, once known for his deliberate, even-handed diplomacy, now openly condemns the United States' action in Iraq as "illegal." He is offended that the U.S. expects accountability in the oil-for-food scandal and refuses to open the books for independent review. The corruption erupting from this single program eclipses the intrigue that is inherent throughout the United Nations system.
For years, individuals and organizations have warned that the United Nations is implementing an agenda that ultimately leads to total global control. These warnings have been discounted by the media and ridiculed by the "enlightened" as the blathering of "black helicopter conspiracy freaks."
Putting aside, for the moment, the UN's agenda, the blatant corruption, deceit and open opposition to all things american, combined with the UN's consistent failure to stop the slaughter of refugees in the Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia and elsewhere around the globe should have americans asking their congressmen why we continue to support this institution.
What exactly does the United States get for the billions of dollars invested every year in the hundreds of U.N. agencies around the world?
We get slapped in the face by the UN Security Council, whose members didn't want to disturb their profitable, private arrangements with Saddam's oil-for-food program.
We get booted off the UN Human Rights Commission and replaced by nations whose human rights practices are among the world's worst.
We get harangued at every U.N. meeting by people who blame the United States for the world's poverty, for global warming and environmental degradation, and worst of all, for supporting Israel.
There is virtually no benefit derived from UN membership that is not readily available outside the U.N. through bi-lateral negotiations--for less cost and much less grief.
President Bush has indicated rather strongly that his patience with the U.N. has limits. He has also indicated his willingness to work with the U.N. in some areas, such as UNESCO. This position is confusing, particularly to conservatives. It could be interpreted as the president's effort to be engaged in the international community, but not bound by it.
The United States cannot build new walls of isolation or withdraw from the international community. The opposite must happen; the United States should reach out to other nations and offer a hand of friendship to all nations that share our values of freedom, individual rights and representative government. The United Nations is not needed for this outreach. The United Nations is not needed at all.
Why not get rid of it?
The new Congress that convenes in January could adopt Rep. Ron Paul's proposal to completely withdraw from the UN Every year this bill has been introduced, it has received more and more votes. The UN's refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations of the oil-for-food program could inspire sufficient wrath in Congress to finally authorize withdrawal from the UN.
Congress could stop short of withdrawal and stop all funding of the UN, pending a congressional review. Each UN agency should be reviewed for relevance and benefit before receiving U.S. funding. Many, if not all, U.N. agencies would find it difficult to demonstrate a benefit to the U.S.
Should these UN agencies be subjected to a congressional review, what would quickly become apparent is the presence of a comprehensive agenda. While each UN agency is responsible for implementing specific programs within its particular jurisdiction, each program and every agency is working from the same playbook--toward a comprehensive agenda.
The ultimate goal of the agenda is to transform the system of governance for the entire world, regardless of the type of government in any nation. The new system of governance is best described as "administrative Governance." In this system, public policy is made by professionals, with input from the people only through approved and duly accredited non-government organizations.
Public policy is then "administered" by participating governments--regardless of the type of government--through treaties and agreements arranged and enforced by the U.N. Implementation of public policy is policed by the same NGOs that helped shape the policies.
The United Nations then becomes the supreme policy-making body. Each participating nation--by treaty or agreement--becomes an administrative unit. In the United States, each state becomes an administrative unit of the federal government, and each local government becomes an administrative unit of the state.
This new system of governance has arrived and is known as agenda 21--the rulebook for sustainable development. There are no black helicopters or blue-helmeted troops. But the agenda is real, just the same.
The UN's agenda and its corruption provide ample reasons for the United States to withdraw from this institution. Withdrawal should be a priority for the new Congress.