A Comment About

Totalitarianism at the U.N.

March 3, 2009 - 12:00 am - by Gordon G. Chang
GDT
2009-03-03 05:08:18

I have to take exception to the last sentence in this post. The UN is NOT a great idea. It COULD be, if it were viewed as something of a universal embassy to the world, creating lines of communication between all countries that would be available when all others failed. That may have been the point originally. That ceased to be the point of the UN quickly. Many (even many in the United States) view the UN as something of a world government. That is NOT a good idea. The one country, one vote, gives banana republics with a population smaller than Tacoma and terrorist sponsoring theocracies the same influence as free producer nations with populations in the 10s and 100s of millions (the ones who actually pay the bills at the UN). Why in the world is that a good thing? Why would we want membership in a deliberative body where we vote (along with Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and North Korea) on what is best for the world? Why would we remain in such a body for 15 seconds after the first anti (Islamic) blasphemy resolution? How can we continue paying most of the tab for something that has become a forum to oppose us?

I understand the need to engage other countries, but why in the world would we give them unearned influence over us? Tell me, why again is the UN a good idea?