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, respectively).

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 process.

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 exist.

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.

Bob Webster
Editor-at-large, OpinioNet