Articles

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Want Human Rights? Leave the United Nations

Good news everybody. Saudi Arabia now has a seat on the women's board at the United Nations. That's right, a regime where it's illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian, where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their 'obscene' female faces... will be a key player in the international effort to empower women.

I don't know what contribution the Saudis can make to the project, since in Ridyah, empowering women usually means strapping them into an electric chair. But in the Muslim world, human rights is usually read to mean banning criticism of Islam under the guise of Islamophobia. In Europe, Islamists are calling the Burqa a human right. That's probably what the Saudis will bring to the table, along with the condemnations of Israel that are De rigueur in every UN group and body.

Obama's ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, called the Saudi win, "a very good outcome". I'm not sure what she would consider a bad outcome. Given her role in kneecapping Canada for the Security Council seat, Rice would probably have considered a victory by a country that actually gives women full equal rights to be a defeat. When your only goal is to pander to the Third World, particularly the Muslim parts of it, in order to defy the colonialist and phallocratic Western patriarchy, handing over power to a phallocratic Eastern patriarchy is just a means to an end. At least until it actually becomes the end. The end of everything.

The fallacy of the United Nations is its assumption that every member of the UN is morally equal. The truth is that the majority of the world's nations are dictatorships with limited human rights. The UN is nothing more than the representatives of dictatorships trying to talk about human rights without breaking up into gales of laughter. If you replaced 75 percent of the UN's representatives with members of American street gangs, you would still end up with a more civilized body.

But we look the other way. And now Saudi Arabia, along with the likes of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Libya are on the board. Their mission will be to promote global standards for gender equality. Which should in theory disqualify countries who don't believe in gender equality from membership. Of course since this is the UN, UN Women will have little to do with its stated mission.

Chilean leftist Michelle Bachelet, who heads up UN Women, praised Sudan for its commitment to gender equality in her opening statement. Yes, Sudan, a genocidal state which uses mass rapes as part of its ethnic cleansing campaign. And it's already clear that the focus of UN Women isn't to promote gender equality, but to intervene in conflict areas. Which means the odds are excellent that UN Woman will be used to crank out an endless stream of condemnations of countries that fight Muslim terrorists, while cloaking those condemnations in the name of the rights of women in the affected areas. And the Saudis are perfectly positioned to guide UN Women down that road.

Because the UN is not a tool for human rights, it is a tool of tyranny. From being a Soviet patsy to being a Muslim patsy-- the UN empowers dictatorships and promotes tyranny. It is a giant hive of lawfare directed against the free world, and funded by the free world.

Human rights don't come from international bodies. They emerge from freeing ordinary people to live the way they want to live. To choose their own systems and their own leaders. The UN does not represent those people, but the systems that rule over them. It is a vehicle for those people to make war on countries where individuals actually do have rights. The UN has done nothing to bring rights to the Muslim world, but it has taken away rights from Americans and other people in the free world.

The best thing we could do for human rights is to toss away the UN and its armies of bureaucrats and useless blue helmeted peacekeepers. Leave them by the side of the road, along with the World Bank and the WTO and all the rest of it, and actually build an alliance of civilizations based on countries that practice democracy and human rights. If you want a loan, don't cry to us about your poverty or your starving children. Hold free and open elections. Toss away your blasphemy laws and free your political prisoners. That is a lot more likely to bring about human rights, than funding building after building of scuttling bureaucrats moving around pieces of paper and dining out in posh restaurants.

But of course we won't do that, because the real goal is not human rights. It's the phantasm of world government. The great mirage of a united world and a united humanity. A Fourth Reich that will finally demolish nations and borders, and teach everyone to live just like in a Benetton ad. It's an ideologically driven goal, and like most such goals, leads to tyranny. The larger the system, the harder it is to maintain the rights of the individual within its spinning cogs and wheels. That is why the UN's only redeeming quality is its powerlessness. It's a pawn of international conflicts, rather than a king or a queen.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used the common element of Communism and Socialism to create a powerful coalition within the UN. Today Muslim countries use the common bond of Islam to create their own dominant coalition within the UN. The Free World could counter them, but it's run by leaders who no longer believe that they share a common set of values. Instead they focus on outreach to the Muslim world. And that's as good as writing up a document of surrender, sealing and stamping it, and then waving a white flag in the air.

By taking the UN seriously, we become the pawn of a pawn. The tool of a tool. We allow a puppet to pull our strings. When we listen to the UN, we're listening to its leftist and Muslim puppet masters. And when we give up our freedom in the name of human rights, then we will have neither freedom, nor human rights.

The left insists that human rights can only come from giving up freedom, and accepting government authority. That is the opposite of the principles on which America was founded. To give it credence, is to drink of the poisoned well of tyranny. The Obama administration shares with the UN a strong belief that freedom is antithetical to human rights. And that therefore free nations are rights abusers, while unfree nations, such as Saudi Arabia, are rights givers.

When compliance with the UN becomes the standard of human rights, then slavery replaces freedom. And the truth is that there can be no human rights without freedom. True human rights are not given, but taken. They are not created by "empowering" people, but by ending their disempowerment, by the same forces and organizations that take away their rights in the guise of "empowering" them. And the UN is one of those forces. The first step in fighting for human rights, is leaving the UN.


(Spanish translation at Reflexiones Sobre Mundo)

19 comments:

SabaShimon said...

Anybody else feel as though we've fallen through the Looking Glass, and nobody's told us?
Who sends out the APB when logic, common sense, and decency go missing?
The world has gone f*cking mad.

lemon said...

The UN is ugly and yes, not all nations are morally equal, not at all. Some barely make the grade.

HermitLion said...

Someone should lead the way, and leave the UN first. Others would follow, until only the tyrannies shall remain.
Sort of the opposite of what happened with the league of nations.

I said 'someone' because obviously the most abused country in the UN, Israel, hasn't got the guts to do it. After all, such a move might impoverish all those bribed traitors who sit in its government.

Anonymous said...

Agree with every word. The UN is a dictators playground where democracy is used by the undemocratic to destroy the democratic. All while the so-called leaders of the west aid and abet the destroyers.

The UN is a cancer on humanity and I'd say to SabaShimon that the world hasn't gone mad, the once proud and mighty west has. And I see little sign of it snapping out of its suicidal insanity.

ProudBrit.

Paul said...

Well said. The UN was never founded to become a global government. The UN was only supposed to be a place where countries of the world could meet, organize and act together. Such an opportunity was supposed to promote peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. And it is true that such an opportunity need exist. But the UN is no longer such a place. If we leave it, we need to replace it with something else that better codifies the basis for which it exists which is not as government, but as a place to meet and talk and form agreements. Such agreements and organization need to be understood as being between countries and not extending from the meeting place itself. The UN was never intended to represent anything like international law.

Rachel said...

SabaShimon---I get that feeling whenever I hear people adoring Kofi Annan. For the LIFE of me, I cannot understand what it is about that man that is vaguely worthy of respect! His entire career has been one scandal chased by another.

We need to return to the Reagan admins' strategy for coping with the UN--through the purse strings. The US funds 20-25% of that beast, and the actual number is probably higher if you consider other monetary benefits the US gives that organization. Reagan was the only US president with the nerve to use funding as leverage in the UN--to threaten to withhold funds when the UN did something particularly bad.

Anonymous said...

@Paul

The UN needs no replacement. What you describe is best accomplished via ad-hoc meetings between interested parties. This is what diplomacy always was before Wilson's lunacy created the League of Nations. This is what effective diplomacy still is. The UN needs to go the way of the dodo.

Paul said...

Even better than cutting off their purse strings, we could move the whole thing somewhere else. Move it to Saudi Arabia and see how they like it there.

Why should the US be paying for all this anyway? Is it a charity organization?

Anonymous said...

The Muslim women are nothing but slaves to Islam:

https://dancingczars.wordpress.com/category/the-canvas-prison/

2sloe said...

I am reminded of the tower of babel. When the world acted together, their unified plan displeased God. He intervened to confound them, separating people with different languages.
The whole concept of One World, according to human plans, is bound to result in them all conspiring to shake their fist in the Face of God.
Again.
The UN is based on an already-proven bad premise, and we should leave.
but our leaders won't.

Paul said...

"The UN needs no replacement. What you describe is best accomplished via ad-hoc meetings between interested parties. This is what diplomacy always was before Wilson's lunacy created the League of Nations. This is what effective diplomacy still is. The UN needs to go the way of the dodo."

There is nothing that gets in the way of ad-hoc diplomacy between nations now

Again, I said, "The UN was never founded to become a global government. The UN was only supposed to be a place where countries of the world could meet, organize and act together." I don't think the League of Nations had anything to do with the United Nations. But the title "United Nations" has a distinctly governmental ring to it.

I still think it is worthwhile for the nations of the world to have some place to meet formally together, just so everyone can meet and talk at the same time. Now, more than ever, what one country does effects some other country on the other side of the world and maybe several other countries at the same time. They need something beside the resources that some nations do not have for international diplomacy. A simple meeting hall or venue of some kind where countries regularly meet is too simple to avoid. Cheap too. It's only when we see such an institution trying to govern in some way that it starts to assume a bureacracy.

No country would apply such a resource when they are old neighbors. Ad-hoc diplomacy is bound to be enough there. If they want some advice from other countries, then such a meeting hall could be a good place. But no blue hats.

Anonymous said...

've always been a little suspicious of the UN. It reminds me too much of a star chamber.

I can't help it, that's what I think of when I think of the mission and actions of the UN.

Keliata

Anonymous said...

Abolish (or withdraw) from the U.N. Great! Let's warm up and stretch the muscles of abolition by abolishing the Department of Education. It's about half the age of the U.N. and should be easier to put down. Otherwise roll over and go back to sleep.

I have spent most of my life in academia. Years have passed without hearing a single academic speak of freedom, liberty, reason, enlightenment. etc. The time of those things has passed.

This is the Age of Fascism. People don't want to be free: they wish to be guided and led by their betters. They need and want U.N. diplomats and credentialed bureaucrats to issue regulations, promulgate ukases, and make five-year plans.

Your analysis is correct and persuasive only within the confines of a dying ideology which is being replaced by socialism, feminism, homosexuality, etc. which have redefined "rights," "family," "hate speech," "marriage," "capitalism," etc. to match the new ideology. Your arguments are incomprehensible to those using the postmodern dictionary. They will ignore you.

Already a totalitarian state, the EU, rules Europe: unelected, unaccountable, unrestrained. Its sub-states prosecute and persecute "the far right" who warn of the destruction of the Judeo-Christian West by Islam. No reversal of the ideas of this age has occurred without war or revolution; such setbacks have been temporary.

What is to be done?

Isaac said...

Daniel:

Willing to help-out. We need to not just walk-out of the UN but to first have its HQ moved to Mogadishu, Somalia. There is an expression used in the UN 'the bigger the car, the smaller the country. This will ensure that membership will drop automatically. Who want to go to Somalia except pirates?......Isaac

Anonymous said...

The John Birch Society has been saying this for the past 50 years.

http://www.getusout.org/

And please, enough about the JBS being racist, sexist, homophobic and every other ad homimen de jour. The JBS is simply an educational group trying to keep fedgov within its strict constitutionally assigned role. Control government, not the people.

Anonymous said...

Aland:
The UN is about consensus and debate. It makes sense to include oppressive countries like Saudi because it opens them up to questioning and allows them to be engaged in debate.It also forces them to answer for their policies and try to justify them. Surely its better to do this rather than isolate and condemn them from afar without giving them the chance to speak for themselves. Making UNWOMEN an exclusive club would only add to the view of the west as hegemonic countries trying to impose their values and police the world. Rather than further distance ourselves and increase animosity I think it makes a lot of sense to include them and keep them engaged. Recall Geert Wilders who took on issues most politicians are afraid to and said "I just want to have a debate". How can you help women in a country without the involvement and approval of the country itself? To give up on dialogue, diplomacy and concensus would be giving up on the ability of nations to achieve agreements peacefully. The writer suggests that by just leaving oppressive nations at it they might actually improve, but gives no analysis as to how that would happen. I found the article to be assertive and vague. He claims in paragraph 4 that the UN believe all its members are morally equal, if that's true, why do they sanction Iran and North Korea? He ludicrously claimed that most of the world's nations are oppressive dictatorships in paragraph 5, there are 192 full UN members, good luck naming more than 25 dictatorships. The writer is also hypocritical, saying in paragraph 7 that the UN is a tool of tyranny then going on to say in paragraph 10 that it is powerless.; a blatant contradiction. The UN isn't about global tyranny and fundamentally respects the soveirgnty of its members.
Regarding paragraph 8 the writer claims the UN has taken away the rights of people in the "free world" but is totally assertive and gives no analysis or explanation of what rights he is referring to. He recommends every nation leave the UN, and that the IMF and WTO be dissolved but offers no alternative solution to international issues and gives no explanation or hypothesis as to how anything would improve if the organisations which campaign and lobby constantly for justice and rights ceased to be.
He claims assertively that the UN has diminished our freedom in the name of rights but doe'n't explain how this is the case at all, he then goes on to admit that freedom and rights go hand-in-hand.

Anonymous said...

To whoever wrote this article there is no point in criticising something without offering a better alternative. You heap criticism on the UN and call on every nation to leave but offer no hypothesis as to what exactly would happen next.How exactly would disbanding the body that does more work for rights, development and justice than any other achieve anything? You're suggesting we stop trying to make changes and then changes should happen. You're asking for a blind leap of faith.
You contradict yourself claiming in paragraph 7 that the UN is a tool of tyranny and then going on to say in paragraph 10 that they are powerless. The UN is about debate and consensus building. I believe it makes far more sense to have Saudi and other opprressive countries on UNWOMEN because it forces them to answer for their policies, be open to to scrutiny and engaged in debate. Surely it is better to keep them engaged in dialogue rather than to exclude them and use an exclusive club to condemn them? What could that possibly achieve? How do you help women in a country without the involvement of that country? The entire human rights concept and movement was pioneered by the UN, you give no analysis or explanation as to how exactly the UN works against rights, you just make the assertion that increasing rights takes away freedom before admitting that the pair go hand-in-hand. Also its incorrect to claim the UN bends backwards for oppressors when countless UN resolutions and programmes have criticised them and promoted the rights they revoke.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Including oppressive countries and putting them in charge of human rights issues is not the same thing.

Put a dictator in charge of human rights issues, and the very idea of human rights becomes perverted in the Orwellian sense. Just as it has at the UN.

And the Muslim world is not interested in a debate, but in stifling debate. Which is what their role in the UN has been.

The UN has become a tool of tyranny and powerless to promote positive change. Which is why the question of a better alternative is null and void. The UN is not serving a function that requires a better alternative. It is a power bloc and a money hole.

Mark Bernadiner said...

The title is incorrect. It should be like this: Whant Human Rights? Exterminate UN.

Post a Comment