April 19, 2003
League of Free Nations
If nothing else is learned from events of the past year, we now know
with certainty that the United Nations is finished as a force for peace,
stability, and human rights. An examination of the UNís track record in
preventing armed conflict shows one dismal failure after another. In its
55-plus years of existence, the UN has been totally ineffective in
preventing well over 100 armed conflicts between nations. The two uses of
military force sanctioned by the UN in its history (Korean conflict in
1952-53 and the war to liberate Kuwait in 1992) both ended without
defeating the responsible culprit (North Korea and Iraq,
The sorry spectacle of the Franco-German-Russian refusal to endorse a UN
sanction of military action to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein is
testimony to the economic stake each of those nations had in supporting
the ill-fated regime. A solid history of genocide and mounting evidence
of atrocities not seen since Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler was insufficient to
move the French, German, or Russian governments to support the only
action that could put an end to the misery of the Iraqi people. Where
economic gain was in the balance, liberty and decency weighed little in
determining the direction the leaders of those nations pursued.
With such petty leadership of nations that presume to have democracy and
liberty for their own people, how can those in other nations who yearn
for freedom have any hope that the UN will aid their cause? Clearly, they
can have no hope if the UN is their only chance for liberation.
The sad truth is, the UN isnít interested in promoting individual liberty
or the values of the democratic process and government that
constitutionally protects freedom. A UN that includes China, North Korea,
Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yemen, Iran, and other such nations cannot
expect to be counted on to support freedom and the democratic
We cannot continue to support a UN that shows so little regard for human
rights that it puts nations like Cuba and Libya in the forefront of its
Human Rights Commission and allows Saddam Husseinís Iraq to lead the
Disarmament Commission. Such disregard for common sense and sensitivity
to human rights can no longer be tolerated.
There is little to be gained by continuing membership in the charade that
has become the UN today. Itís time to form a new organization composed of
only those nations who value liberty, individual freedom, and
self-determination in government. A League of Free Nations would exist to
promote peace and harmony among free nations through treaties, trade, and
international cooperation to end all terrorism and support the process of
change in countries where liberty and self-determination do not
Unlike the UN, a League of Free Nations would not enter into
international agreements that include nations of despots and totalitarian
regimes who have no intention of abiding by such agreements. Unlike the
UN, a League of Free Nations would have an obligation to put an end to
regimes who hold their nations population captive and/or who support
terrorism. In many cases, strictly enforced sanctions (unlike those of
the UN) would be all that is necessary to bring about the desired change.
However, when despots cling to power at the expense of the basic human
rights of their population, then whatever means is necessary would be
used to bring freedom to a subjugated people. Slavery was wrong 140 years
ago and itís just as wrong today.
The time has come for the United States to leave the UN and the UN to
leave the United States. The US should lead the process of forming a
League of Free Nations.
Let the French host the UN in Paris. A more fitting locale for such
ineffectiveness is hard to imagine.