Well, that pretty much kills the suspense, doesn’t it?
No, I don’t think a lot of the United Nations. Never have. I am two hundred days older than the UN, and not nearly one-tenth as corrupt.
One big difference between the United Nations and me is that I’ve loved America since the very day I came to understand what America stood for, while the UN has not. Since the day I came to my senses (sometime around my senior year at Texas A&M), I have been dedicated to the cause of individualism, human freedom, and economic liberty. The UN hasn’t yet come within shouting distance of those challenging concepts.
It shouldn’t take any time at all to set even the most ardent UN supporter on the road to doubt. All it should take is a little refresher course on how the United Nations was originally set up.
First, let’s take a look at the UN General Assembly.
How many votes do you think every member nation should get in the General Assembly? One? Sounds reasonable to me. One country—one vote.
And that’s—almost—the way the United Nations was set up. Every single member of the United Nations does have one, and only one, vote.
Every member, that is, save one. Guesses, anyone?
Now, remember, the UN was established in 1945. Who was out there, shaping up as a source of problems and concerns for the U.S. government in 1945?
Right: the Soviet Union. The race for world military and political domination was under way as soon as Japan and Germany folded their tents, and the UN started playing against U.S. interests the moment the starter’s gun sounded.
The Soviets’ first advantage? The United Nations charter singled them out for an outrageous advantage in the General Assembly. The United States got one vote in the Assembly. Likewise, every other member of the newly formed UN got one solitary vote.
The Soviet Union received three. How the hell did that happen? The Russians exploited a technicality. The UN decided to give each of the Soviet “republics”—Russia, Byelorussia,1 and the Ukraine—its own vote, notwithstanding the fact that these were all indivisible parts of the Soviet empire. It was roughly like extending sovereign nation status to Texas and California.2
A similar disparity existed in the United Nations World Court. No member country, including the United States, was allowed to have more than one judge sitting on the World Court at any one time—except, that is, for the Soviet Union, which was allowed to seat three.
Now, you can sing the praises of the United Nations and the good intentions of its founders all you want. But when the original charter stacks the deck in favor of the Soviet Union over every other nation in the world—by a factor of three—there’s got to be a charter rat hiding somewhere.
For most of its history, the UN has been preoccupied with what it calls “peacekeeping missions.” Oh, yeah, what a success story. The truth is that UN peacekeepers are more likely to be involved in the rape and plunder of the nations they’re supposed to be stabilizing than trying to combat those who would disrupt the peace.
Let’s tick off some of the places where the UN has “kept the peace,” shall we?
Rwanda.
Somalia.
Darfur.
Triumph after triumph.
And lest we forget, there’s the UN’s infamous oil for food program in Iraq. How many millionaires did that one create?
The failures are easy to chronicle. What about the genuine successes?
Fairness compels me to admit that the United Nations, largely with the financial assistance of U.S. taxpayers, has done a rather good job of monitoring and addressing potential health crises in various parts of the Third World.
That’s about it. That’s how they escape being labeled a 100 percent pure, unadulterated failure.
In the meantime, they’re busy on the East River, busying themselves with plots to take over the Internet, or trying to figure out how they can drag U.S. citizens before a World Kangaroo Court to answer for purported crimes against humanity.
But wait, some of you may be thinking. What about all the grand things the UN has done in the name of human rights?
All right, let’s play ball. You go ahead and start your list of everything you think you know about the UN’s grand and glorious record of human rights accomplishment. While you’re thinking, I’ll tell you a few things you may not know.
For starters, let’s take a quick look at the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the “Genocide Treaty.”
The UN General Assembly adopted this travesty at the end of 1948. The purpose was admirable: Following the revelations of the Holocaust, the fledgling UN wanted to make genocide a crime under international law.
So far, so good.
The problem comes when you start trying to define genocide. Article II of the Genocide Treaty defines genocide as:
…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Now maybe it’s just the lawyer in me, but did I just read that causing mental harm to members of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group is considered genocide? Just thinking about that causes me mental harm. Does that mean that if I say something on the air that’s deemed offensive by, say, some Hispanics who are trying to enter our country illegally, I might have committed the crime of genocide? Sorry, but I’m not particularly anxious to be dragged off to some world court to be tried for genocide because I had a rough day on the air. I’ll take my chances right here at home with my nifty little Constitutional protections, thank you very much.
And there’s more. Let’s see: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.” Does this mean that a birth control program in an impoverished region of Africa could get someone charged with genocide? I know Catholics consider birth control a sin, but that’s a pretty stiff penance.
Which brings us to the very cornerstone of the UN’s human rights agenda: the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The United Nations was barely three years old when this document was crafted. It was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Fifty years later, it had become such a hallowed charter that our then-president, Bill Clinton, presided over an event at the White House for its fiftieth anniversary, celebrating it in these glowing words:3
This Declaration is one of the most important documents of the twentieth century, indeed of human history, for it represents the first time men and women sought to articulate the core aspirations of all the world’s people. The authors of the Universal Declaration struggled to understand and harmonize their differing cultural traditions and convictions during a three-year debate that culminated in a set of rights recognized by all as transcending national, social, and cultural boundaries. The eighteen delegates who met under the wise, compassionate leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt and framed the Universal Declaration did not refer simply to men, or to the privileged, or to any specific race or religion. The language of the document clearly states: All human beings are born free and equal.
Strong stuff, isn’t it? “One of the most important documents…of human history.” That would put it in the company of such trivialities as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.
So is Clinton’s cherished Universal Declaration of Human Rights really all that?
Hardly.
The Universal Declaration is a Universal Disaster. It’s nothing less than a blueprint for tyranny. A shallow and poorly crafted document, it could only appeal to three groups:
During his eight years in the White House, Bill Clinton managed to utter some incredibly ignorant statements about our country, our Constitution, and our heritage.4 The prize for mindless bloviations, though, must go to Clinton’s fatuous endorsement of this human rights declaration.
Now, I know that most of you probably haven’t taken time away from your busy schedules washing the minivan, reinflating the soccer ball, listening to the iPod, and keeping track of Lindsay Lohan to actually read this United Nations human rights declaration. But if there’s a president of the United States running around calling it one of the most important documents in the history of freedom, perhaps you won’t mind giving it a bit of attention.
If you wish, you can just read the entire document on the Internet. (Don’t do this while driving, talking on the cell, with a mouthful of hot coffee, or after a greasy meal.)
Or you can let me do the hard work for you.
The declaration starts off well enough, admittedly. Here’s the opening paragraph of the Preamble:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world;
Not bad, right? Equal rights, freedom, justice—all important concepts. Of course, there’s no definition of peace or justice; still, it’s a good start.5
So what other wonderful rights does the United Nations declare that we citizens of the world are entitled to? Some of the enumerated rights sound like they came right out of our own Constitution:
But there are also quite a few rights in the human rights declaration that seem a little more problematic:
We could spend the next hundred pages trying to figure out just how a government might address someone’s right to rest and leisure—or debating any number of these other eye-opening provisions. (There’s a universal right to paid vacations?) But in the context of the United Nations human rights declaration, it would be a complete waste of time.
Why?
Because every single one of the rights I’ve listed above is nothing but vapor. They’re all invalidated by an escape clause so outrageous it should be considered its own crime against humanity. Skip down to Article 29(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and you’ll find the following paragraph. It may look innocuous at first…but you need to read it. Digest it. It captures the very essence of the United Nations—that wonderful world body we hope will someday solve all of mankind’s problems—and its ulterior motives.
ARTICLE 29(3) OF THE UNITED NATIONS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.”
Forget about the rest of the declarations in the Declaration (most of that stuff was self-evident anyway, except for the parts that are self-evidently ludicrous). Article 29(3) is the most important sentence in the entire declaration. It may well be the most important sentence in any United Nations document, including the UN charter itself.
For the effect of this sentence is simple: After setting forth all of the glorious human rights to which every human being on this earth is entitled, in one twenty-word sentence it takes all those rights away.
That’s your wonderful United Nations at work.
Think about it. There you were, merrily rolling along, enjoying your rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of movement, to own property, to be presumed innocent before a court of law. Maybe even exercising your wonderful God-given right to enjoy the arts!
What happens if suddenly the United Nations comes up with some “goal or purpose” that would be inconvenienced by your exercise of these rights?
They’re gone!
Read 29(3) again. Apparently, if the UN decides that your right to free speech, or to own and remain in your home, stands in the way of some kind of UN goal (say, seizing your home), you’re out of luck.
Are you getting the picture? Good. That puts you ahead of Bill Clinton.
Here’s the sobering truth: If the United Nations comes up with some grand scheme that would require seizing you and placing you into slavery, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights offers you no protection whatsoever. In fact, it positively affirms that the UN’s own rights trump your own.
Hello, ball and chain!
Under our Constitution the federal government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. That means the government gets its powers from us.
The United Nations sees things a different way. Under their hideous human rights declaration, the people derive their rights—their power—from the United Nations. And when the United Nations adopts some goal or purpose that’s inconsistent with our exercise of these rights, the rights go right into the toilet.
As someone once said, The people be damned.
UNICEF
Several years ago we had a protestor outside my flagship radio station in Atlanta, NewsTalk 750 WSB. This fellow used to put a huge sign in the windshield of his car—“Shame on WSB,” I think it said—and park it on the street outside the station.
Protestors are nothing new at WSB. Every once in a while, a group of local Muslims will march up and down the street to protest my insensitivity to the wonderful peace-loving religion of Islam. The last time they held such a protest, I ordered about a dozen pizzas (just cheese, veggies, and ground beef) and had them delivered to the marching Muslims. They ate heartily and left. Haven’t seen them since.
The man with the “Shame on WSB” sign in his car wasn’t a Muslim, and he wasn’t looking for a free pizza. He was upset over some comments I made on the air about the United Nations Children’s Fund—UNICEF.
I’m sure that UNICEF does some good work for children. My problem with UNICEF has nothing to do with what they do or don’t do with those dollars that are collected by our little trick-or-treaters on Halloween.
My problem with UNICEF is that, whatever good works they do manage to pull off, they do so in the name of the United Nations—burnishing its reputation when it ought to be tarnished instead.
When you donate money to UNICEF—through Halloween collections, gift card sales, Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation, or any other charitable group—the money stands a good chance of helping children around the world. That’s good. Still, in the politically correct world of the twenty-first century, the United States needs all the friends we can get. Why, then, should we spend our American charity dollars through the United Nations, an entity not at all friendly toward our country, and allow them to take all the credit for our kindness as Americans?
There are many U.S.-based charitable organizations that do absolutely wonderful things for children all over the world. When those children receive food, clothing, or medical supplies from these agencies, they and their parents are told that the items came from the United States. Americans donate the funds, Americans get credit for the good deed—and the rest of the world learns a little bit more about how generous we are as a nation and a people.
Not so with UNICEF. When the UN’s charity relief organization pays to help children overseas, much of the funding comes from American citizens. Yet when the children and parents involved feel like giving thanks, they’re told that the United Nations deserves the credit.
Why does all this matter? Not because we care about credit for credit’s sake. That would be nice, but complaining about it would be petty. Charity shouldn’t be conditioned on a pat on the back.
It matters because the rest of the world has spent too much time running down the American people—claiming that we’re nothing but shameless exploiters, exporters of trash and looters of treasure, spreading violence in underdeveloped countries—while throwing roses at the United Nations and its irresponsible, profiteering ways.
For an organization that goes around crowing about justice, that doesn’t sound very just to me.