A World Without the UN
by John F. McManus

Our Founding Fathers set America on a course for peace, security, and friendly relations with all nations. In a world without the UN, we can return to this non-interventionist path.

The fruits of more than a half-century of United Nations involvement are these: endless war making overseas for an elusive peace that’s always just around the corner; the weakening of the United States armed forces and their gradual subordination to international authority; an open forum — on American soil, no less — for our enemies to belittle us and our adversaries to spy and infiltrate; and subversion of our cultural, religious, and educational institutions. For far too long, Americans have allowed the globalists at the UN and in our own government, media, and schools to poison, corrupt, and distort our laws, our government, and our culture. For an organization such as the UN there can be no accommodation and no compromise. The only solution is to withdraw completely.

What Would Withdrawal Mean?

How would America conduct her international affairs if we quit the world body? The answer is simple. We would rely on ambassadors already posted in virtually every nation. When any problem arises between America and another country, it would be addressed by representatives of each. This is how American foreign policy functioned for a century and a half and it should be reinstituted.

This isn’t isolationism but non-interventionism in the affairs of other nations — what sensibly used to be called "minding our own business." It’s a refusal to send American forces and American wealth into the world’s hot spots when we are not threatened. It’s a return to the enduring wisdom offered by George Washington, who stated in his 1797 Farewell Address: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Four years later, Thomas Jefferson repeated that wise sentiment when he listed as "essential principles" of our nation: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." And John Quincy Adams might have anticipated the United Nations when he warned: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom."

More recently, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio wrote in 1951: "Fundamentally … the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States.... No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted without reservation of diversion to the protection of the American people, with war only as a last resort and only to preserve that liberty." Yet, as in Senator Taft’s day, so also in our time, those espousing such a common-sense, practical, moral, and above all, constitutional view of American foreign policy are branded as "isolationists."

In truth, America is not, and never has been, an "isolationist" nation — true isolationism has always been a mark of dictatorships like North Korea, Cuba, and most of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. American citizens have ethnic roots in every land. American businessmen, scholars, tourists, and diplomats may be found almost everywhere trading, studying, sightseeing, and conducting diplomatic affairs. America more than any other nation in history is fascinated not just with her own culture and affairs but those of the entire world. The UN, then, is a false remedy for America’s nonexistent isolationist malady.

But even if this weren’t true, the collectivist UN approach to peace simply won’t work. Bringing matters to the UN intensifies problems and exacerbates conflicts by involving the entire world in local disputes. Quiet, one-on-one diplomacy has always accomplished far more good than sending emissaries to grandstand before television cameras or at UN rostrums.

A Wise Course

How then to deal with terrorism of the kind recently visited upon this nation? To be sure, the perpetrators of the atrocities carried out against America on September 11th must be punished. No enemy, no matter how great the provocation, can justify the recent suicidal attacks resulting in the appalling death and destruction here at home. At the same time, we must ensure that the response is proportionate to the offense, avoiding tit-for-tat retaliation against innocent civilians and perpetuating the cycle of violence and hatred. And since most of our needless interventionism originates in the halls of the UN (itself an organization that consciously protects and sponsors terrorist regimes) and kindred internationalist organizations, we must keep the UN out of the War on Terrorism.

At the same time, we would do well to reflect on why so many people hate America nowadays. We are, sadly, often perceived as the world’s bully, especially when we wage thoughtless wars in places like Serbia and Iraq, where civilians end up paying the price for policy differences. Instead of cruise-missile diplomacy, we should seek always to be an example to all nations and a friend to all peoples. In this way, we will win admiration not only for our wealth and power but also for our character.

No Reform

In the face of growing sentiment among Americans to pull out of the United Nations, many of its supporters suggest only reform. Such proposals, however, are akin to prescribing aspirin to treat terminal cancer. As we’ve shown over and over in this issue, the UN cannot be reformed; it was created by evil, conspiring men and was designed to be a sovereignty trap and an instrument of worldwide socialist subversion. Yet even a once-staunch opponent of the UN, Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), has called for mere cosmetic changes in the organization. During his January 2000 speech to the UN Security Council, he insisted that "all of us want a more effective United Nations." Not so, Mr. Helms! Growing numbers in this country want our nation out of the United Nations as the first step toward seeing the world body abolished.

The UN has clever methods of neutralizing opponents by drawing them into its web of influence. Groups claiming to be opposed to UN policies have applied for and received the world body’s official designation as a "non-government organization" (NGO). Craving a seat at the table, "conservative" groups as diverse as the NRA and the Family Research Council have NGO representation at the UN. They seem to believe that through their influence, the United Nations may be reformed. But by accepting NGO status, they have acknowledged the UN’s claim to be a legitimate global legislative body. Furthermore, by accepting NGO status at the UN, these groups pledge to support the UN’s principles and purposes. In 1996, the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) passed a resolution stipulating that NGOs with consultative status must "be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" and that the NGOs "shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations." It is, therefore, impossible for NGOs working within the UN tent to prevent the world body from achieving its nefarious goals. Indeed, these NGOs become willing accessories to the crime of demolishing the independence of the United States and the freedom of her citizens.

Freedom in the Balance

A future world, dominated by the UN, would be a nightmare from which there would be no escape. It would be a world in which those accused of crimes would have none of the protections currently guaranteed them by the U.S. Constitution. It would be a world in which rights to freedom of assembly, speech, and religion, as well as the rights to bear arms and to own property, would be granted and withdrawn at the whim of far-away, unaccountable bureaucrats. American mothers and fathers would see their sons and daughters pressed into the service of a global military, commanded by foreigners. It would be a world of quotas, rations, and bread lines, of informants, subterfuge, and fear. It would be the Soviet Union on a planetary scale.

Have we, as a nation, really come so far that we are willing to surrender the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers? In the inspiring words of Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

Our Founding Fathers were left with no recourse but the clash of arms and the aims of war. We may rejoice that our situation is not so dire. The course of action, though, is clear. We must employ our hearts and minds, and our pens, in the effort to educate our fellow citizens. And then we must, for the sake of ourselves and our posterity, convince Congress to cut off funding for the United Nations, to repudiate that body entirely, and to "Get US out! of the UN."

Order This Issue