For some conservatives, the United Nations is the single largest factor in many of America’s problems—the entity is the most effective re-distributor of wealth in modern history. UN secretary generals, including the current SG Ban ki Moon, have damaged the US image more than any American official.
Of late, Ban has issued ‘the sky is falling’ warnings about climate change, an effective recruiting tool in countries where there is no freedom of the press. You could probably ask most Main Streeters anywhere in the world about scientists who disagree with financier Al Gore’s dire predictions and you’d not find a one who knew there are indeed scientists who disagree. Developing countries blame the US and other industrialized countries for everything from drought to typhoons. It's easier to blame an outside party than to hold leaders of those countries accountable.
But all that is insignificant when it comes to Ban’s enthusiasm for R2P, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
In the guise of world peace and protection for citizens everywhere, the UN is pushing the R2P doctrine after Ban’s predecessor succeeded in getting the UN General Assembly to approve it in 2005. Kofi Annan simply circumvented the UN charter. Ian Williams, writing for Foreign Policy in Focus, a liberal think tank who gets some funds from the UN Foundation, said, “Rather than attempting the impossible task of rewriting the UN Charter, Annan got the assembled delegates to reinterpret it. The assembled government leaders declared that the threats to international peace and security that came under the organization's remit included crimes against humanity, even when committed by a sovereign state within its borders.”
If you read Williams’ essay, you’ll note the decidedly unfavorable approach to Israel—he cites “atrocities in Gaza,” but fails to mention the role of Islamist terrorist groups in said atrocities. Of course considering The UN Human Rights Council approach—a deliberate coddling of one religion over others—it’s fairly easy to read the writing on the New World wall.
Ban is pushing R2P with an eye on the Security Council’s permanent 5 members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and Russian Federation) responsible for decision-making. Williams says, “Its three pillars are the responsibility of sovereign states to prevent crimes against their people, the responsibility of the international community to detect and avert such criminal situations, and the responsibility to apply varying degrees of coercion against the perpetrators from monitoring to sanctions to, if necessary, military intervention.”
Williams cites China as one country reminding the UN the world body doesn’t run the planet just yet: “The Chinese delegate, for instance, stood the whole concept on its head by declaring that the UN must not waver from "the principles of respecting state sovereignty and non-interference of internal affairs." Now no one will hold China up as an exemplar for human rights. But that is a political issue for China and her people. What kind of human rights do women have, for example, in countries ruled by theocratic dictators? Regardless of your sympathy, to usurp a country’s sovereignty is a dangerous and troublesome matter unless that country’s actions directly threaten the rest of the world.
If Ban has his way, will military troops go to countries to enforce climate change policy based on one-sided, pre-determined science? Will a country be attacked for defending itself as the US did after 9/11?
During his presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain suggested withdrawing from the UN and founding a new organization made up of democracies. Few paid attention to one of the best ideas I heard in all the rhetoric.
But the world paid attention to the junior senator from Illinois and it was no secret current president Barack Obama was more popular in other countries than his predecessor had been. One reason may be Obama’s willingness to be part of the move towards world government. Williams wrote, “Washington can hardly call upon the Sudanese to respect the indictment of a court that it has refused to accept itself. To ensure greater global public support for R2P — and answer some of the legitimate charges of the doctrine's critics — the United States must end its own double standards on international treaties and military intervention. Obama is more likely than any president in 40 years to make moves in that direction, so R2P has more of a future than it did a year ago.”
Remember all the ridicule from people in years past about The New World Order? It’s not so funny anymore. The US is asleep at the wheel and even as we doze, our freedoms are being whittled away with both parties in Congress turning a blind eye. R2P is a danger to US sovereignty. On this foreign policy matter, China is exactly right regardless of what intellectual idealists promote. A pinch of common sense is often worth more than a pound of brilliance when it comes to survival.