What the United Nations Stands For (Hint: It’s Not Freedom and Peace)

by | Apr 13, 2004

Q: Clearly, the new Spanish Government [the Socialists, who oppose the U.S. War Against Terrorism] is saying that they will support whatever the United Nations will support (through the majority of countries of this world). If the coming U.N. resolutions are to support the U.S., the U.S. will have all the allies they need. And […]

Q: Clearly, the new Spanish Government [the Socialists, who oppose the U.S. War Against Terrorism] is saying that they will support whatever the United Nations will support (through the majority of countries of this world). If the coming U.N. resolutions are to support the U.S., the U.S. will have all the allies they need. And that’s the way to go. Spain’s people aren’t saying they’re against the U.S.; they’re only saying: let us join the international majority. What’s wrong with that?

A: The problem is that the “international majority” is weak, timid and just plain wrong. What’s right isn’t determined by majority. What’s right, in the context of world peace, is determined by who supports the peaceful versus who enables the violent; who supports freedom and individual rights versus who undermines them. The United States still represents the best of freedom and individual rights. It only acts militarily in self-defense: that is, to retaliate against or prevent the use of force against itself. Terrorist and terrorist-sponsoring nations, who make up part of the U.N., stand for the initiation of violence, as opposed to self-defense. You take it for granted that everyone is morally equal. They’re not! You operate on the premise that the U.N. is a well-meaning body of people who want peace; every member of the U.N. wants peace, you assume, because they say they want peace. You completely ignore the fact that openly hostile, tyrannical governments such as Syria, North Korea, Iran and (formerly) Saddam Hussein’s Iraq all comprise the membership of the U.N. So does Communist China. So do cruel, vicious and bloody dictatorships throughout Africa and the Third World. In this context you still manage to ask: what’s wrong with letting the U.N. decide what’s right rather than any one country–especially the United States–deciding what’s right?

I have the answer to this question: the U.S. is entitled to decide what’s right for the U.S., because the U.S. is the strongest and most consistent upholder of individual rights and freedom left in the world. Our government, even if led by somebody thoroughly inadequate like Bill Clinton or John Kerry, is more likely to act in the interest of our safety than a body whose membership consists of our most mortal enemies and phony allies, such as France, Germany, Russia and now Spain. The U.S. bankrolls and provides all the essential moral support the U.N. requires. Without the membership of the U.S., the U.N. is an irrelevant, academic body.

Does this mean the U.S. is infallible and can make no error? Of course not. But in the case of its military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, both the motive and the result was to undermine dictatorial regimes who were objective threats to the United States (and anyone else in the free world who cares). Not only did the U.N. offer little or no support for these initiatives; it would never hear of going after more dangerous dictatorships such as Iran (still the # 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world today) and North Korea (a dictatorship whose threat is obvious to everyone). Spain has told the terrorists, through their vote: “OK, terrorists. We hear you. Uncle, uncle. We’ll do exactly as you say if you stop bombing us.”

Yup, that’s sure what works with abusers and killers. Expect the terrorism to now increase, not decrease. Also, if you’re looking to predict when the next terrorist events might take place–particularly on U.S. soil–keep an eye out a few days before Presidential Election Day.

Hasn’t it occurred to people who think like you that the U.N. doesn’t exist to oppose dictatorships nearly so much as to oppose the United States? Its central mission isn’t to protect innocents from violence; its central mission is to undercut and chastise the United States, with the help of U.N. members such as Iran, Syria and North Korea who are violent enemies of peace and freedom. It’s worse than a travesty. It’s a case study in unfathomable denial.

The U.N. does not stand for freedom and peace. The U.N. stands for moral equivalency: for pretending that free countries and violent dictatorships are one and the same. Allowed to lead us, the U.N. will be the death of us all.

Dr. Michael Hurd is a psychotherapist, columnist and author of "Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)" and "Grow Up America!" Visit his website at: www.DrHurd.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Did you gain value from this article?

With over 9,000 articles online Capitalism Magazine is completely free. We rely on the generosity of our readers to keep us going. So if you already donate to us, thank you! And if you don’t, please consider making a donation today. One-off donations – or better yet, monthly donations – are hugely appreciated. You can find out more here. Thank you!

What do you think?

We are always interested in rational feedback and criticism. Feel free to share your thoughts using this form.

We will post responses that we think are of interest to our readers in our Letters section.

Pin It on Pinterest