Empowering the UN in the
Guise of Reform
October 3, 2005
Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty - a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.
have been concerned for some time about the establishment of a UN Peacebuilding
Commission, an idea I first found so troubling when the International Relations
Committee marked-up the UN Reform Act containing this provision earlier this
to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council members,
major donor states, major troop contributing countries, United Nations
organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop
and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term
development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key
coordinating body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian,
and civil administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core
of a future UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict
misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the
funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy
fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not
meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds
of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East,
which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented
with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United
States? What if the US is
determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such
as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?
disturbing, however, is the UN adoption of the “Responsibility to Protect,”
a report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (www.iciss.ca/report-en).
Whenever the UN names a commission to study intervention and state sovereignty
you can bet that it is to promote the former and undermine the latter. This
“Responsibility to Protect” report adopted by the UN commits member states
to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign states if the state in
question does not protect its population from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, and crimes against humanity,” or does not protect its population
from the “incitement” to such crimes. Who determines the criteria for this
policy of global pre-emption? The UN, of course.
While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly conceivable that at some future date a weakened US may face a financially and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within US borders after determining that the US has not lived up to its “responsibility to protect.” This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a “reform” process that is actually strengthening the United Nations. What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this turns out to be our own?