The Federal Republican

__________________________________________________________________________________

God, Save the United Nations!

by Robert J. Romano

August 1st, 2005

Or perhaps Ambassador Bolton can. Or so we hope. On the heels of the breakout of what I've heard termed in the media as the "Supreme Battle" over the confirmation of would-be Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, so comes the belated appointment of one John Bolton to the position of the United States' Representative at the United Nations. Not unlike what we would assume Senate Democrats have in store for Judge Roberts, Bolton's appointment came after months of inaction in the Senate, led by the filibustering minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid. And not a moment too soon. There is grave danger in the world, and as the People's Ambassador has promised to strive towards, utilizing the words of the United Nations Charter, "to help maintain international peace and security..." we can be certain of his commitment. That's not all, the President offered Bolton as our representative, and used his constitutionally vested power to appoint him in the Senatorial recess, in order to, in his words, "provide clear American leadership for reform at the United Nations."

This is a vital national security interest of the United States. Reforming the international body of the United Nations carries with it a tremendous responsibility to remember history's and humanity's failures to make such treaty-making organizations work. The failure of the League of Nations to effectively preempt fascism and militarism is well-known. Today, still genocides are carried out, and yet the United Nations is as ineffectual ever and not even willing to acknowledge that there are genocides being carried out! This is premised on the notion that if one does not call it a genocide, then one does not have to enforce the laws which are supposed to prevent it. The body is actually debating what terrorism, as a term, means. They lack an international fighting force as was originally envisioned by its founders, and instead the only hope for enforcement is by coalitions of the willing. Resolutions are crafted which when posed to a rogue state, achieve mixed results, and usually lack enforcement or the credible threat of the use of force. It gives to those rogue states a presumption of innocence even when the crimes committed are already great. It sits on issues which should have been heard and resolved already. Its member states selectively subscribe to the Charter's tenants.

For instance, the preamble of the UN Charter states, "We the Peoples of the United Nations determined... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small..." This is a fundamental principle, and one which we are supposed to believe that all of the UN's signatories subscribe to. But we know they do not. This is no democratic league. UN membership is granted to any country, regardless of human rights records, except for Taiwan, whose human rights record far exceeds that of several member states. This is an organization whose principles, while sound, hardly propel international diplomacy towards peace without the ever-present need of enforcement being fulfilled. Instead, we are well aware of the general tragedy that is international politics, the problems posed by international anarchy, and in particular the scourge of aggressor states. Not only was the organization founded to uphold human rights and democratic self-determination of all nations, but as the preamble states, "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security." And yet, despite the requirements of freedom and security, it simultaneously allows member states to not live up to those requirements. A debating society, indeed, Mr. President.

So, let us debate what the mission of the United Nations is. Let us read this Charter which we subscribe to, which we and our Soviet allies after WWII crafted in order to save us from aggression. Let our ambassadors and policymakers be vocal in upholding its principles. Let the people's representatives of member states know where America stands, because it is leadership which the people here in America respect. We need it now, and we expect it from Ambassador Bolton. Our mission to the United Nations is one of reform, and America must unveil a platform of initiatives which shall rebuild and revitalize the missions which the United Nations once ordained in a different era, and which are subject to review. Those missions are well-stated in the Charter, and they require enforcement and transformation to address today's strategic and humanitarian priorities. It's not enough that the Charter states that maintaining international peace and security is a goal, it must stand united with the combined powers of the Security Council against the growing threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of state sponsors of terrorism. It is not enough that the Charter states that equal rights shall be respected by all member states, instead it must be a requirement for membership. We must not accept conservative arguments that women are not possessed of the same rights as men, for, as dated as the idea is, it still persuades in this 21st century. We must not accept as a norm that not all peoples get to elect their leaders, for, as horrible arbitrary despots are, they still exist in power. We must not accept the tragedy that there are state sponsors of terrorism which are pursuing nuclear weapons, for, as much as we hate war, inaction is by far worse. We must not accept evil. Not while we still draw breath.

We've got to do something about it all. As we consider the mission of the United Nations, so too must we press the policies of the United States to the world proper. Defeating tyranny is no short order, and as the President has stated, it is the work of generations, and eliminating the terrorist danger shall take no less determination on the part of member states. The world must be united in the war on terror, and I fear that it shall take an attack far greater than those of September 11th in order for the policies which must be established to be promulgated to cope with the threat. A concerted strategy, with the allies of freedom and peace, is being conducted to advance human liberty, but without the participation of all member states of the United Nations, does this organization's very name survive scrutiny?

Are these Nations truly United? Are we united in our zeal for liberty? Or in our willingness to uphold human rights? Or in our determination to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, if we are not united to spread freedom and democracy, human dignity, and the promise of prosperity, then what does unite us? What about our opposition to tyranny?

Or does self-determination mean to leave dictators to their own designs? To allow genocide. To promote anti-Semitism. To appease the new forms of fascism. Perhaps, we are headed for a darker future, in which we will be threatened by villains whose bent for world domination is only exceeded by their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the ultimate nightmares which we dread will come true.

One thing is for certain, it is America's purpose not only to uphold our people's freedom, but to eliminate tyranny everywhere. It is not solely our interest to keep our people safe, but to eliminate all dangers to the peace, no matter where they rise. We must, as the People's Ambassador suggested today, "advocate for America's values and interests..." because the fate of the free world depends upon it.