UN Turns 70 — High Time to Put the World Body Out of Its Misery
Seventy years ago today, the UN Charter came into force, thus inaugurating the latest attempt to create a one-world government.
Previously, the world tried to achieve that goal by creating the League of Nations -- a weak, ineffective body that failed miserably in its charter to keep the peace.
Actually, when you think about it, that perfectly describes the UN. But the League actually thought that a blizzard of paper could stand against totalitarians hell bent on world domination so they signed treaty after treaty, inked convention after convention, to try and stop the armies of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo from running wild all over the planet.
Needless to say, it didn't work.
Enter the UN 70 years ago today. Seventy years is a nice, round number and given the utter futility of the UN to achieve its mandate, perhaps the world body should retire and move to Shady Oaks. It's not doing any good in New York, but then, the UN's fat and corrupt bureaucrats would have to drive a ways to get a good meal, or see a Broadway show.
Every so often an idealistic American president makes a pitch for some modest "reforms" for the world body. In truth, corruption is so deeply embedded in the structure of the United Nations that it is folly to think that you could root out the crooks in the UN bureaucracy.
After all, this is an organization responsible for the biggest bribery scandal in world history. The Oil for Food Program saw $67 billion walk out the door and into the pockets of dozens of businessmen, politicians, and UN bureaucrats. The scope of the wrongdoing was stupendous, reaching the upper levels of several governments. Later, the UN claimed it was not up to them to police the Oil for Food Program, despite the fact the organization created it and was given a billion dollars to manage it.
But the biggest problem with the UN is its moral corruption. The fact that it's an anti-American body shouldn't be surprising given that most of the world is anti-American. Using the CIA as a scapegoat for the thug kleptocracies of the world is what we've come to expect.
But putting the worst violators of human rights on a human rights commission or representatives of nations who enslave women on a women's rights commission, as well as other transgressions against decency mark the UN as an immoral body that doesn't deserve the support of the United States. Anti-liberty, anti-Semitic, anti-free speech, anti-free market -- the UN stands in opposition to every value we hold dear.
To be clear, some of the work done by the UN needs an international home. The refugee crisis cannot be addressed by one country or even regionally. But perhaps setting up a private, non-profit entity would do better -- and be more efficient -- at dealing with the crush of refugees.
As for the rest, the World Health Organization performed miserably in dealing with the ebola crisis. But what else is to be done with an international health crisis? Some international body has got to take charge or there would be even more chaos than there was.
Other UN bodies we could do without: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which allowed Palestinian terrorists to use schools to store rockets, could be deep sixed; the International Telecommunications Union, which is currently trying to engineer the takeover of the internet; the International Fund for Agricultural Development, an organization set up to alleviate rural poverty that has actually made the problem worse.
The need for international bodies to deal with international crisis is not at issue. The question is, should a corrupt, ineffective international organization be given 22% of its budget (27% of the peacekeeping budget) by the American taxpayer?
The question answers itself.