Globalism is not top priority

As an organization composed of distinct member states, the U.N. has had no choice other than to be as dependent on them and, consequently, to be as weak as it has been. The U.S. cooperates with the U.N. when it serves the U.S.'s interests, but ignores the U.N. when it does not. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The U.S.'s primary duty in the international arena as a sovereign state is to pursue its national interests. To subjugate its interests to those of the U.N. would do a disservice to the American people and betray one of the state's very reasons for existence.

But a principal cause of Mr. Helms' alarm is that the U.N. has been moving away from a coalition of sovereign states toward a sort of creeping world federation presided over by a more powerful world government. As Mr. Helms stated, the International Criminal Court presumes to hold jurisdiction over American citizens, and thus is an attempted encroachment on American sovereignty. The problem with a centralized world government is that, as it grows stronger, it is sure to grow more tyrannical, because it is necessarily distant from the people it rules. Since the interests of all the world's various peoples are both diverse and at odds, it could only implement its rule through coercion or force.

Fortunately, because of its powerful position in the world, the U.S. is in a position to resist this trend. The nation has the influence to assert its constitutional prerogatives, which supercede any international treaty. Furthermore, the U.N. relies on the U.S. much more than the U.S. on the U.N. The U.N. has every right to see that its practices and policies are in accord with its interests and worth its money. If they are not, the only alternative to our current protest of withholding payments is withdrawal from membership.

Many countries, however, are not as powerful or influential as the U.S., and so cannot effectively resist U.N. encroachments on their sovereignty. Often, this is because they are dependent on foreign aid from the U.N. or member states. Seeking to promulgate the amorality of the Brussels and Geneva elite, the U.N., through several of its agencies, has promoted universal access to abortion and contraception. When such things are declared rights, they are intended to trump particular national laws to the contrary, even if those laws represent smaller nations' love of and adherence to traditional morality.

But the question remains: what would the U.N. do if it could take receipt of all American arrears? Presumably it would enlarge its inefficient bureaucracy, put more soldiers at risk with byzantine rules of engagement in hostile areas, and continue to force abortion, sterilization, and contraception upon traditional societies under the guise of human rights and population control. No thanks. Jesse Helms has raised the ultimate possibility of American withdrawal, and that is the sort of direct talk one does not normally expect to hear from politicians. If the U.N. does not reform and check itself, and if it cannot play without the U.S., then America should indeed take its ball and go home.

Back to Opinion...