|
U.N. inadequacies threaten freedom By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Oct. 1, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. Last week’s showing at the United Nations would have been comical if its ramifications weren’t so serious.
Gadhafi made full use of his time, but not good use. The man who toppled the legitimate government of Libya in 1969 rambled on for 96 minutes, chastising the West, blaming the U.N. for not stopping wars and demanding a new investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, alleging an Israeli connection. Also gracing the august podium was none other than Hugo Chavez, the de facto president for life of Venezuela. Chavez created quite a clamor when he called President George W. Bush “el Diablo” before the same body in 2006 and claimed the Bush was “talking as if he were the owner of the world.” This time around, however, Chavez was somewhat more cordial to our new president. “We want good relations with [President Barack] Obama,” the self-avowed socialist revolutionary said of Obama mere months after fist-bumping with him at a meeting of the Organization of American States. Chavez has been a weak leader who could barely control his own population. He was ousted from office once in 2002 in a short-lived coup, but he now appears to be fomenting discontent against the United States as a means of distracting his subjects and the world from his consolidation of power. Chavez’s speech to the U.N. set the stage for Iran’s installed president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to accuse the world powers of “using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom.” This from the man who regularly threatens Israel with annihilation, denies the Holocaust happened, crushed dissent following his highly questionable election in June and insists Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful even after a secret nuclear site was revealed last week. After seeing these supposed leaders in front of the General Assembly, one question quickly came to mind: Who let all this riffraff into the room? Seeing would-be dictators and terrorist supporters being given the same consideration and respect as real leaders of the world is revolting and absurd, and it shows, above all else, the United Nations is a broken organization. To illustrate, Gadhafi said the U.N. should have acted to prevent the 65 wars that have taken place since the organization’s founding in 1945. Funny words from a man who invaded Libya’s neighbor Chad in 1978 and twice provoked the United States into hostilities in the 1980s. In step with Gadhafi, Chavez dismissed Obama’s call for “a new era of engagement” by all nations to solve the world’s problems while surrendering the United States’ role as international peacekeeper. “[I]f you are promoting peace,” Chavez addressed to Obama, “then why the seven military bases in Colombia?” I imagine a man who has been exposed supporting anti-Colombian rebels would see a superior American military presence in Colombia a detriment to his plans. Chavez said in 2006 the U.N. is in need of reform, and he was correct. However, it’s unlikely he would be in favor of the reforms the world body actually needs. For starters, people like Gadhafi, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and other illegitimate rulers do not deserve a seat at the table. The United Nations needs to have standards for admittance, much in the way the United States set forth standards for new states to be added to the Union in the Northwest Ordinance. Furthermore, and more importantly, the U.N. needs to have a mechanism in place to remove thugs and dictators from power. Allowing Saddam Hussein to thumb his nose at 17 U.N. resolutions for 12 years revealed the body to have no teeth, and it required the United States to finally topple the dictator. Throughout its history, the U.N. has only been taken seriously when the U.S. military donned the festive blue helmets and actually enacted what the U.N. has decreed — something that must be considered now that the U.N. Security Council passed the unanimous resolution to rid the world of nuclear weapons. While being a desirable goal, the Western powers would likely be the only ones that would actively seek to end nuclear proliferation, and would again draw charges of imperialism as a result. This high-minded decree is reminiscent of the League of Nations’ outlawing warfare for settling international disputes, but the league’s weakness contributed to the rise of the Axis powers and eventually World War II, the bloodiest conflict in human history. The current United Nations is flailing about much like the League of Nations did — as a powerless debate society that had little influence over its member states. This was not a serious problem when the United States acted in the world’s interest in putting down would-be dictators and rogue states. The danger now lays in the fact these rogue states are looking to form their own international organizations. Last weekend, during a summit in Venezuela, Chavez called for a “NATO for the South” linking South America and Africa, created explicitly to oppose the United States and Western democracies. Heartily agreeing with Chavez was Gadhafi. The two rulers also declared that they “reject intentions to link the legitimate struggle of the people for liberty and self-determination” with terrorism, clearly justifying an ‘any means necessary’ approach to achieving their goals. It is time for the free nations of the world — whose numbers are beginning to decline — to declare that the Libyas, Irans and Venezuelas of the world do not have a right to exist as constituted and deal with them accordingly. Otherwise, these regimes may decide the same of us. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
To get the show rolling in grand accord, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi stepped up to the podium to address the General Assembly — and stayed there for nearly two hours.
