September 10, 2001
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
Most liberty-minded Americans already know that the United Nations seeks to impose global government on all of us in the future, but now the organization is attempting to rewrite the past as well. Its recent week-long "World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" demonstrates just how broadly the UN views its own authority. Even though the stated goals of the conference- to map out an international strategy to combat racism and right the wrongs of the past- might seem laughably far-fetched, it's unsettling to think that the conference might be setting a precedent for more UN expansion and more phony international laws.
The idea that certain countries should pay reparations to compensate for the ills of slavery and colonialism cannot be taken seriously. First, it's clearly impossible to determine exactly who was harmed and who benefitted from past actions, with so many generations having passed since the times in question. The vast majority of Americans for example, have no connection whatsoever to slave owners. Furthermore, who decides what wrongs are corrected? If we go back 100 or 200 years, why not 500 years? Once reparations lawsuits are allowed, the potential liabilities are endless. The only real beneficiaries of the reparations furor are the UN and the trial lawyers.
Of course a serious rift developed at the conference between the Israelis and the Palestinians over a proposed condemnation of Israel's recent attacks on Arab settlers. Once again the United States was caught in the middle of this ancient conflict, both sides of which we already militarize with billions in foreign aid. If the UN really is so effective at promoting peace, why are some of its own member nations at war with one another? The Arab/Israeli conflict is a clear example of how global government not only fails to resolve localized conflicts, but instead makes them worse by angering one side.
These kinds of disagreements will intensify as UN power grows, and winners and losers in regional conflicts are increasingly decided by globalist bureaucrats. Whenever the UN chooses a victor in a dispute, the defeated nation understandably feels resentment. This animosity naturally is directed at the United States, as we are seen as the greatest world power in the UN. So our involvement in the UN does not create a perception that we are neutral. On the contrary, our involvement in the UN forces us to choose sides in every hostility. We should never kid ourselves that the United States is seen as a peacemaker by the rest of the world simply because we conduct wars sanctioned by the UN.
I hope the highly publicized infighting at this latest conference will demonstrate how truly political the UN really is. Like all political organizations, the UN exists to serve the interests of certain parties at the expense of others. It is no more impartial or altruistic than the governments and people it now wants to condemn for the sins of the past. In fact, it acts precisely as the colonial powers did- by constantly expanding its global governance and waging war to conquer nations that resist its authority. The UN's plans for control over every nation on earth make the imperialists of past centuries pale in comparison.
More than anything, the UN is anti-American. It's happy to take our tax dollars and send our young people to fight undeclared wars under foreign command, but it does not respect our Constitution or our national sovereignty. More and more Americans now understand that the UN is not an instrument for creating world peace, but rather an emerging global government with an agenda of its own. This agenda truly is incompatible with the freedoms earned and enjoyed by millions of Americans.