Last month at its "World Summit" in
New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national
sovereignty a step that could threaten the United States in the future.
The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes
a "Peacebuilding Commission," creates a worldwide UN "democracy
fund," and most troublingly codifies the dangerous "Responsibility
to Protect" report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.
I have been concerned for some time about the establishment of a UN Peacebuilding
Commission, an idea I first found troubling when the International Relations
Committee marked up the UN Reform Act containing this provision earlier this
According to the UN, this commission will bring together the UN Security Council
members, major donor states, major troop-contributing countries, United Nations
organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund to develop
and integrate conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and long-term
development policies and strategies. The commission will serve as the key coordinating
body for the design and implementation of military, humanitarian, and civil
administration aspects of complex missions. Think of this as the core of a future
UN army that will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere.
The misnamed "Democracy Fund" created at the World Forum may well
provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this "global
democracy fund" will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments
that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further
the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from Eastern Europe to the
Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in
fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used
against the United States? What if the U.S. is determined lacking when it comes
to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing
or universal health care?
Most disturbing, however, is the UN's adoption of the "Responsibility
to Protect," a report of the International Commission on Intervention and
State Sovereignty. Whenever the UN names a commission to study intervention
and state sovereignty, you can bet that it is to promote the former and undermine
the latter. This "Responsibility to Protect" report adopted by the
UN commits member states to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign
states if the state in question does not protect its population from "genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity," or does not
protect its population from the "incitement" to such crimes. Who determines
the criteria for this policy of global preemption? The UN, of course.
While it may be true that the United States exerts considerable control over
the United Nations at present, this may not always be the case. It is certainly
conceivable that at some future date a weakened U.S. may face a financially
and militarily stronger China, for example, that demands UN action within U.S.
borders after determining that the U.S. has not lived up to its "responsibility
to protect." This is the lesson for conservatives who are cheering on a
"reform" process that is actually strengthening the United Nations.
What will happen when the sovereignty we undermine through measures like this
turns out to be our own?