The Myth of Unity

“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into a lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to differentiate between good and evil.” Hannah Arendt

The stated mission of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security in order to develop friendly relations among states; it was to do so by promoting international cooperation by providing a forum in which nations could peacefully discuss, debate and resolve issues rather than resort to the barbarous historical means of the past with armed conflict. It was made apparent again yesterday by the shameful and cowardly exodus of most of the General Assembly of the UN in protest to the speech by the Prime Minister of Israel that it is incapable of fulfilling its mission.

The UN was never intended to be a police force, although at times it attempted to do so by posturing that such actions were in the cause of peace, which we were to believe made it the lesser evil, when in fact it perpetuated the very evil it was meant to avoid; in the cause of peace it failed miserably. Over the years, especially in more recent times, it has become something even worse as grotesquely illustrated by its support for the very evils that provide for conflict.

Since it was created to provide an alternative to war by providing a forum for communication, how can there be communication if the majority of its members refuse to listen to one of their own? One of the first actions of the UN at its inception was to recognize the State of Israel, yet now it wants to create a new state of Palestine whose declared mission is the annihilation of Isreal. It is apparent that the majority of the UN members, including many nations in the West, lack “…the capacity to differentiate between good and evil.”

It is time for the US to reconsider its membership in the UN given the simple fact that the organization is not only incapable of fulfilling its mission but supports the very toxic policies promoted by terrorist organizations, especially in regards to Israel, and American interests in general. Given the fact that the US pays approximately 23% of UN revenues, its departure would at least reduce the funds various UN agencies have been found to use in support of some terrorist organizations. Discussions in Congress to do so have been relatively muted since Ron Paul’s proposed bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which would withdraw the US from the treaty known as the UN Charter. If ever there was a case for the US to leave the United Nations, it is this latest episode of involving an action that rewards terrorism.

The very notion of a two state solution that the UN General Assembly has supported for awhile now is a failure to even see the reality that there are already actually two Palestinian States involved, one ruled by Hamas in Gaza, the other by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in the West Bank, and in between there’s Israel. If you are going to recognize a state, you should be able to identify what it is both geographically and politically; by that simple logic, you have to either deal in this case with both existing Palestinian states, or declare who exactly you are recognizing as the “legitimate” one. No matter what construct of “state” is proposed for Palestine, neither Hamas nor the PNA will agree, causing yet another conflict added to what is already a region in chaos.

The UN was an early consequence of the globalist ideology born of the post war period; it is an ideology that promotes separating political sovereignty from the people of its member nations, which for many of the evolving countries of that time allowed for tyranny by creating an overlord environment, with the UN as the new monarchy and member nations its vassals. If this sounds Medieval, it’s because it is, complete with the alliances, intrigues, violence and betrayals of such a system. As history has shown, including that of the UN, such systems are unsustainable as the result isn’t greater solidarity but polarization of competing factions, each with its own ethos. We have seen the chaos that such organizations eventually devolved, as with the League of Nations, which only exasperated the conditions that led to WWII.

There is an inherent moral hazard created by such treaties that created the League of Nations, and its successor the United Nations, which is present at any time, and that is that any party has the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles of the agreement, especially if there are no consequences if it does so. This is where the UN is at, which should inform the US that it belongs to an organization that has become the antagonist to the very principles upon which it was created; while this may be an example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, it doesn’t mean that the US should continue to tolerate it, or it may find out too late why Washington and Jefferson argued for a careful foreign policy “…of friendly neutrality that would avoid creating implacable enemies or international friendships of dubious value, nor entangle the United States in foreign alliances.”

“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” Robert Louis Stevenson