It is clear for a variety of reasons that the United Nations is not only ineffectual, i.e. it can’t enforce its own resolutions, but is operating against the interests of the United States and free people everywhere.
One reason for this is simply that there are more backward and crummy countries in the world than there are free ones. This translates to the poor running the show and, not surprisingly, voting themselves all sorts of benefits, like foreign aid and such.
A more important reason is that the interests of brutal dictatorships and free states are diametrically opposed to one another. To have the two come together and compromise only works to the benefit of the dictatorships. The greatest historical example of this was the alliance of the United States and Britain with the Soviet Union during World War II. We gained nothing through this alliance, but Joseph Stalin was able to keep his country in his tyrannical and murderous grasp as a result of it. This ended up costing us much more in a forty-year cold war that could have been avoided by simply letting Stalin suffer the consequences of dealing with Hitler, or by us recognizing the obvious threat in 1945 and finishing Stalin off.
The important thing about any international alliance though is that the policies, values, and goals of the member states remain consistent with one another. It makes no logical sense to combine countries like China with countries like the United States and then wonder why they can’t solve any problems together. Also, these two countries are moral equivalents in the eyes of the United Nations, an utterly absurd proposition, but it is one that you must accept if you think the United Nations is a valid organization.
In light of these inconsistencies I propose the following. The United States ought to withdraw from the United Nations, which would leave it as a body without bones. We should then propose a new international alliance; a natural, consistent and rational alliance of nations that has something in common, their love for individual liberty. Automatically off of the list of nations is France, a socialist country that cares nothing for individuals, those in France or elsewhere.
This “Liberty League” could then know for certain that all of its member states are truly committed to the same goals, namely the preservation of their sovereignty, international free trade, the protection of private property, and the protection of individual rights. Such an organization would also have the advantage of absolute moral clarity, which the United Nations is entirely unable and unwilling to achieve. This is particularly important when the world is at war, ostensibly of free countries versus modern barbarians and the despotic states that support them.
This is all, of course, merely a fantasy. But wouldn’t it be great if people of ability stopped denying their own greatness with idiotic terms like “ethnocentrism” or “cultural relativism?” If they stood up upon objective morality and denounced that which is evil in the world and aggressively fought it? People like Saddam wouldn’t be able to stand the onslaught, Fidel would be forced into the heart attack his people have been waiting for, and Kim Jong Il would crawl back under the rock he came from.
But too few people use their brains for thinking unfortunately, instead engaging in ad hominem arguments or choosing not to think about politics or philosophy at all. Amorality is king now. That isn’t to say we need religion, but exactly the opposite. If you base your morality on fictitious being in the sky then it is as worthless as the dirt you think you were created from.
Reason is the only thing that can lead one to morality, or a morality that is moral anyway. Until people begin to think, politicians especially, we will be stuck in the non-active, non-thinking quagmire the world is in, symbolized most fatally by the United Nations.
