Ten reasons why the UN must be abolished 23

Daniel Greenfield’s 10 Reasons to Abolish the UN is a must-read. Find it here.

These are the 10 reasons summed up in headings:

1. The United Nations Obstructs America’s Defense of the Free World

2. The United Nations is a Force of Global Injustice

3. The UN Obstructs the Prevention of Genocide

4. The UN Distorts Women’s Rights to Promote Violence against Women

5. The UN Cannot Prevent Nuclear Proliferation

6. The UN is an Undemocratic Perversion of Democracy

7. The United Nations is Hopelessly Corrupt

8. The UN is an Economic Drain on America

9. The United Nations Endangers American Civil Liberties

10. The UN Holds Human Rights Hostage to its Double Standards

The booklet is short, but every accusation is fully proved.

In his Conclusion, Greenfield writes:

The UN is a vast global employment agency with no purpose except the perpetuation of its own power and authority. Its lofty buildings and the bustle of its vast armies of employees conceal its underlying corruption and uselessness.

American participation in the United Nations supports the deception that it is an international body capable of fair-minded governance. That deception cruelly betrays the hopes of the weak and the vulnerable and abets genocide, mass rape and terror.

The United Nations has become an organizational assault on its own founding principles. And all the while it undermines the sovereignty and rights of the free member nations who still believe that all men are created equal and that governments derive their authority from the people.

The only way to redeem those principles is to exit its corridors and walk a new path toward an alternative alliance that does more than pay lip service to freedom, democracy and human rights. Only America can be the nucleus of such an alliance. And only when the nation that gave the world freedom leaves the international order that impedes it can a global alliance of free nations truly be born.

*

In an article titled America: The Chief Subsidizer of UN Rapists and Traffickers, chiefly concerned with what happens to whistle-blowers on the UN role in crimes of rape and the trafficking of sex slaves, Phyllis Chesler expresses her disgust with that appalling institution:

The Wilsonian-influenced ideals of the UN are not realistic or realizable.

We agree emphatically. And whenever unrealistic ideals are set, nastiness ensues. (Vide Christianity.)

The UN is predicated on the myth — nay, the lie — that UN diplomats and civil servants are morally upright, fair, decent, rational — and, not the vicious tyrants, bullies, thugs, liars, egomaniacs, cowards, and grifters that they truly are. Nor does the UN have a transparent system in place that would hold their mightily flawed personnel accountable for the crimes they commit. …

Who keeps it going, this Tower of Iniquity, this World Headquarters of Evil? More than any other country, the United States of America!   

If it is clear that the United Nations allows its peacekeeping troops to commit major human rights atrocities, why would we allow such an institution to render decisions that are meant to affect the entire world? Why would we abide by such decisions? More important: Why should the United States fund an international criminal operation? The United States pays the lion’s share of the Secretariat costs at the United Nations. Don’t worry, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has assured stressed American taxpayers that the two-year headquarters budget (2010-11) will only amount to a meager $4.92 billion.

According to the UN peacekeeping website, the budget for the fiscal year 1 July 2011-30 June 2012 is approximately seven billion dollars. The United States is responsible for 27 percent of this cost, or about two billion. This is far more than what Japan (1 billion), the UK (591 million), China (285 million), Spain (230 million), or Korea (164 million) pays for peacekeepers. Interestingly, under President Barack Obama’s administration, the United States overpaid its share of the UN peacekeeping budget. In fact, our overpayment of 287 million dollars is more than what most of the world’s supporters — including China — pay for “peacekeeping.”

Why is the United States funding rapists, criminals, pimps, brothels, and sex traffickers? Why are we funding orgies? Why are we funding the most heinous betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable civilians in war zones? Why are we overpaying for UN peacekeeping?

Why is the US paying anything at all to sustain the rotten institution?

THE UN MUST BE DESTROYED.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • Chimini

    The UN is nothing but a milking cow for the corrupt third world governments who would rather keep their tax money to their pockets while pleading the UN to donate more. And when they don’t get much as they want, they accuse the better off nations of being hypocrites.

    • RGS

      do you think only third country, do you think there isnt human traffic in USA, france, Spain and so on? DO you think there is not corruption in those big counteries?…kind of naive. the point is UN failed his purposed and it is just a smoke screen for big organization and BIG countries to do their dirty work. It is a FAIL and it is getting worst every year. Even without replacement will do more good than bad…

  • Chimini

    The UN is not doing anything about China intruding and UNLAWFULLY claiming the coastal territories of its neighbors. There are tensions right now between China and Vietnam. the Philippines and Japan and the UN ain’t doing nothing, The funny thing, the UN does not enforce the 200 NM EEZ which China is a signatory of! The Asia-Pacific is in a brink of hostilities due to China’s absurd claims and arrogance (They are claiming the whole of the South China Sea and are starting to enforce it).

    In issues that can be settled peacefully like this that the UN does not care about, what more with bigger issues regarding universal human rights, etc

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.m.cardon Steve M Cardon

    What doesn’t get discussed much in the media about the UN is what goes on in the back rooms. I’ll give you an example: Lets say the US wants backing from other members of the security council to increase sanctions on Iran. They need this to step them closer to being able to take military action in the future. Both of these require the consent of Russia and China, as well as other countries who comprise the security council, or nations whose Airspace we or Israel must use etc. They all will have a price, whether quid pro quo of one sort or another, trade concessions, whatever. With Russia and China you know the pricetag will be pretty steep. Lots of groundwork negotiation, and working out of details must take place at lower levels before the deal works its way up the chain. It is a lot more convenient to do this in various meeting rooms at the UN because all the players already have representatives there. Otherwise you would burn an awful lot time and fuel , and coordination would be a nightmare. In addition, it is easier to have private discussions with a country that you don’t want the press privy to, as they would be if you actually flew to that country.
    Easier communication between countries helps avoid misunderstandings, and mistakes being made. What the press covers: Security council meetings, and the general assembly are just formal shows for the public;where each country publicly states its position. They give lofty political reasons, but what they are really saying is whether a deal was made or not.. .

    • Jillian Becker

      Steve – your description of what goes on in the small rooms of the UN is fascinating and plausible. But with all our new means of communication, is any face-to-face talk ever necessary?

      • http://www.facebook.com/steve.m.cardon Steve M Cardon

        On the surface it might seem that the advent of video conferencing would render it obsolete, If you could be absolutely assured that transmissions were well enough encrypted, I don’t know if heavy video encryption of that sort wouldn’t still bog down the transmission. I think there is also something about the face to face. My guess is that a lot of older diplomats probably still prefer this. They are poker players set in their ways. I don’t pretend to be an expert, just relaying anecdotally from reading I’ve done over the years, being curious about the UN myself.
        If nothing else, I think the UN is a show for the world, intended to put forward the image of nations trying to work things out. In that context I think it may have some value.

  • Joe

    Harold, NATO is another option for a global cooperation. The funds from the UN could be diverted there instead.

    • Jillian Becker

      Trouble is, Joe, that NATO is compromised by the membership of Turkey. It would be good if NATO would free itself of that, and beef up its strength – which the diverted funds you speak of could help it do. Also, the European powers would need to contribute much more to the organization. But they are hampered by failing economies and growing Muslim electorates.

      • http://www.facebook.com/steve.m.cardon Steve M Cardon

        That is a good point Jillian, however I would point out that Turkey has genuinely tried hard to remain secular in its government, and it really has more to gain by maintaining good relations with the west. They might go either way push come to shove, but don’t discount the possibility of them calling bullshit on the muslim extremists, and telling their people the truth, which is that it is merely a religious power grab. The muslim protests in Turkey have apparently been very small.

      • http://www.facebook.com/steve.m.cardon Steve M Cardon

        As a post script: Tomorrow we should get a roll count on which muslim nations have their people under control, and which don’t… As they all come rolling out of mosques after friday prayers..uggghhh

  • Harold

    The UN is indeed a very flawed organisation, and many of the criticisms are justified.  However, the abolition in my mind would be going too far unless there is some alternative.  Yes, the UN is crap, but without it we have NO forum for global cooperation.   And surely some of the UN agencies are good – UNICEF and WHO seem to me to be positive agencies.  Also it is very easy to pick the worst parts, but this stragtegy can be use to make the USA look bad too.

    For example, on point 10:
    “Only the United States and other free nations that respect the rights of their own people and of all people can be trusted to do so. “Yet the USA detains people without trial indefinitely – is this not a double standard?  If you want to hold the UN to very high standards, surely you must maintain them yourself?  By acting in this way the USA demonstrates that it cannot be trusted to respect the rights of *all* people.  If the USA unilaterally classes you as a illegal combatant, you have no more rights than a soviet dissident in the gulags.Admittedly, we are tallking of a very small number of people at the moment, but the rest of the word has a right to ask if without the UN the USA might start to exert its version of rights more widely.  On point 9, the UN asks the USA to “investigate deaths in immigrant detention facilities”  Is this really “endagering US civil liberties?”  The other points are unlikely to have any impact on US civil liberties at all.On point 5, yes, probably correct, but who could prevent nuclear proliferation?  You can’t shove the genie back in the bottle.   I acknowledge that this is a failed goal, but there are still only few nuclear nations, and there may have been more without the UN.Point 3, yes, there are problems, but the Yugoslavia trials have sentenced 48 war criminals, it would have been difficult to secure these convictions without the UN.Probaly the UN should be abolished, but what would take its place?

    • George

      Good question  ! I think people actually intentionally let it get out of hand Harold.  If the UN were to dissapear right now , as you say –they don’t have a substitute organization ready on the “back burner ” to put in it’s place even though I detest the UN –mainly because of it’s corruption ,  accepting terrorist nations and engaging in policies that are a threat to American security  and of  our allies.  It’s a good idea to have a unified fraternal body of nations around the world who strive for unity , cooperation and world peace if that is the goal.  The UN is a fraud.   Personally ( just my opinion ) I think the various civilized nations around te world should  just pull out of the UN , cease funding the UN  , give them the “boot” and send them into a third world nation for their headquarters and eventually they will just wither away and dissapear into infinity.  It’s like leaving a corrupt fraternity and joining a new one that is respectable  and positive.    Let ALL the good and civilized nations pull out , form their own independent national organization   ( independent of the UN ) and then the UN will fade into obscurity and have no influence and power. We are the major funders and reactionaries of that group.  Without the US and other super-power nation support , the UN is DEAD .   What do you think ?

  • C.Gee

    11. The UN’s IPPC  is the instigator of the great global warming scam which will impoverish the world. 

    • George

      The sad part C.Gee is that so many gullible people around the world are still falling for it. Do people ever think and use their minds anymore ? It makes you wonder.

    • JJF

      Here’s hoping your children/grandchildren/great-great…. are thankful to you when living in a hothouse world of resource-and-water wars.

      Or maybe you don’t give a shit cos you are childless??

      • http://www.theatheistconservative.com Jillian Becker

        C.Gee – co-editor of The Atheist Conservative – is far from childless. But we try not to argue ad hominem.

        There is and will be no shortage of “resources”. The best resource mankind has is its brains. As long as the State keeps its deadening hand off, human enterprise will always innovate. New generations will solve their own problems. Why are they more worthy of the oil under our soil and sea than we are?

        The world could do with being warmer, but at present – and for the last 15 years or so – there hasn’t been any warming. We hope it will resume soon.

        Do you really believe that buying “carbon off-sets” from Al Gore is going to affect the climate of this vast planet?

        What threatens the earth is (in descending order of magnitude), Islam, the over-mighty State, the United Nations and its accumulation of power through the climate change myth, and the gullibility of so many people.

        • JJF

          So, like classical economists you believe resources to be infinite? Plain common sense says it’s not so.
          ‘Global warming myth’ is your comfort blanket; there HAS been warming in the last 15 yrs, absorbed by the Pacific ocean. I don’t care what you denialists say, we NEED clean energy; had we done so 30 years ago we would not now be in thrall to repulsive M.E. oil states, would we?
          I agree with all your other points. Climate change is real, it’s here now and we will suffer, in ways we can’t predict.

          • http://www.theatheistconservative.com Jillian Becker

            Climate change is a condition of this planet. Humankind is highly adaptable, always has adapted to climate and always will.

            The US has the most oil and natural gas reserves of any country in the world, and can dispense with imports from Middle East oil states when a sensible administration takes over from this disastrous one.

            The resource of the human mind is infinite. Did our ancestors ration themselves candle wax in fear that future generations might run out of candles? Let’s use all the oil and gas we need. Generations of the far future will find other sources of energy. Fission, fusion, and who-knows-what that we cannot predict any more than our ancestors could predict electric power.

            • JJF

              Candle wax- nice example of the Strawman argument. Incidentally, had we not moved away from whale oil it is unarguable some whale species would be hunted to extinction!

              Climate change is accepted to mean anthropogenic climate change, NOT the normal long-term climate variation you refer to. It is the extreme rate of change that differentiates it from ‘normal’.

              U.S. reserves? Wildly overstated-

              http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/21/3439944/monterey-shale-undrillable/

            • http://www.theatheistconservative.com Jillian Becker

              Your link is to a site that tells us that ONE shale deposit – Monterey Shale – has been overestimated. You are a true believer, aren’t you? Any scrap that seems to defend your fragile position is hurled liked a missile. This one’s a dud.

              AGW is a “strawman” argument if ever there was one.

              You will not change our minds. Why are you such an eager proselytizer? Why do you feel the need to convince us of something we have read and thought about for years to come to an opinion? You have no clinching argument. Give as much of your money to the government or Al Gore to stop climate change as you like. We don’t believe that governments can make an ounce of difference to the vast cosmic forces that play upon this planet.

              And we have no wish to augment an already over-powerful government’s control of our lives.

  • Frank

    I agree 110%

    • George

      I’ll double that Frank —————-I agree 220%  !!!!     People are so brainwashed Frank.  Here we have the UN that allows terrorist nations into their ranks and yet they proclaim  to represent a union of civilized soverign nations————–  what utter bullcrap !!!!!!

    • George

      I’ll double that Frank —————-I agree 220%  !!!!     People are so brainwashed Frank.  Here we have the UN that allows terrorist nations into their ranks and yet they proclaim  to represent a union of civilized soverign nations————–  what utter bullcrap !!!!!!