10 Reasons to Abolish the UN

By Bill Narvey

 10 Reasons to Abolish the UN  is an important work explained in meticulous detail.  

It is a timely work as we have begun to bear witness to the ingathering of nations to the UN for its latest session where a great many tyrannical UN members get set to warmly welcome Ahmadinejad to the podium, where the Palestinians, will present letters to the UNGA and UNSC seeking a UN resolution to declare Palestine a state, which resolution is expected to pass given the majority of non-democratic UN members, sympathetic to Palestinians and antipathetic to Israel and the U.S, the leader of the democratic free world is flailing about trying to prevent such resolution from passing and reduced to practically begging Abbas to at least somehow soften the wording of his request for a resolution declaring Palestine a state.

Nature however, abhors a vacuum and so too does international realpolitik.  The report thus  concludes that the UN must be abolished and a new alliance created in its stead:

“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.”

Unfortunately, the author in suggesting a new kind of alliance to replace the UN, presents that proposal in vague general terms that do not even hint at which nations might be suitable members of such new alliance, what principles such new alliance would be guided by and what real powers of enforcement such alliance would have.

Assuming you agree with the case made in this pamphlet, I am interested in you advising me of any links to articles you have written or are familiar with concerning the question of what would replace the UN, if abolished or your own thoughts as to what specific and  definitive solutions you have in mind that would bear on answering  the question, if the UN is abolished, what then?

 

September 21, 2011 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. The idea of a United Nations establishement is vital, but not this club for Arab terrorists. How on earth do people like Arafat, Amadinijahd and Gadaffi get a voice in this ‘nations for peace’ organization? We are better off without it.

  4. Say folks, you don’t need 10 reasons.

    Only one, this body is nothing more than a cesspool of bad nations who support terrorism and treat their citizens and women like crap.

    Senator Barry Goldwater said years ago we should get hell and move the headquarters to another country.

    Again, I say lets form the “Free World Alliance”, the US,GB, Germany, France, India, Israel and other free nations. Those who engage in and support terrorism, who don’t allow their citizens to freely choose the government of their choice, don’t bother, your application will be rejected.

  5. There has been, for the past several years, movement afoot, lead by former Spanish PM Jose Aznar to convert NATO to the United Democratic Nations Org. NATO, lacking a purpose since the demise of the Soviet Union, should re-tool their beaurocracy, buildings, military etc. to be the home of this new democratic UN. After all why should criminal nations get to vote in a democratic process when those in US jails are not allowed to vote in elections.
    All members of NATO (Europe, US, Canada, Mexico) get automatic entry as well as Israel, Australia, N Zealond, Japan and So Korea. Thereafter, qualification based on criteria of free elections, free judiciary, free press and 2 or 3 other crieria can gain entry into this forward looking group of the most advanced countries in the world. Then maybe other countries will strive to better themselves to gain entry

  6. Why does anyone believe a UN of any kind is either necessary or desirable? Some of the UN’s constituent agencies might upon examination be worth maintaining in some form but beyond that?

    Iron Curtains, Rhetoric & Reality

    “The United Nations Organization must immediately be equipped with an international armed force… a force for action, a true Temple of Peace.”

    “We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations… one of several continental units, the pillars of the world instrument for maintaining security.”

    The need of Americans to prove themselves was a comfortable stance for Churchill since many of his class considered Americans younger siblings in need of instruction, and whose might, wealth and good nature existed to be exploited by the initial colonizing power. The arrogance of the posture was the more striking since Americans, at enormous sacrifice of money and blood overseas, has achieved a striking victory over imperialism and tyranny, saving, the British once again and many other nations, except for the Jews, too. But we were told, “these are anxious and baffling times” and indeed, the cold war and “world organization” we were to establish was ushering in a world like that dramatized in Macbeth, “when the battle’s lost and won,” when “fair is foul and foul is fair,” when a smog of imagery, bad dreams and worse ambitions derange reality and the witch, fearfully and bizarrely is the grandfatherly tutor and heroic warrior statesman himself, come to prescribe our duties per the vision of his oligarchic peers…

    And thus, “nothing is but what is not” and we inherit the blatant artifice, fog of images and illusion, and routine lies that distinguish and define postmodernism, the last stage of the West as it sinks into “the state that follows history,” the era of the media distraction machine.

    “A united Europe cannot live without the help and strength of Germany. This has always been foreseen by the European Movement to whose exertions our presence here [in Strasbourg] is due,” Churchill affirmed. Much of this speech, a notable complement to his exhortations in Missouri was devoted to the restoration of a strong Germany to achieve “world peace and European security” as the “united sentiment of Europeanism.”

    These two speeches delineate the growth and integration of NATO and the EU that we experience in our time. Add to this the integration of Russia’s and the EU’s economies with that of America and China’s one has a “socialist world collective” fronted “by the world instrument” of “the Temple of Peace” – the lie is complete. Global jihad, inflated and promoted by the great powers, has replaced Communism in the dialectic processing of a controlled world: ‘they made a desert and called it peace.”

    “In this our age of infamy man’s choice is but to be a tyrant, traitor, prisoner, no other choice has he.”
    (Pushkin’s verses quoted by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Cancer Ward (1964-7))