...it
might be, just perhaps, that nations would be better off charting
their own course rather than handing over their sovereignty to a
group of unelected, incompetent, crooked bureaucrats.
|
In
a League of Its Own
By
George Hawley
In
the fall of 2002, President George W. Bush laid down a challenge
to the United Nations, stating: "It's time for them to determine
whether they'll be the United Nations, or the League of Nations.
It's time to determine whether or not they'll be a force for good
and peace, or an ineffective debating society."
The
charge was unreservedly slanderous, insulting and unfair
to the League of Nations. To call the United Nations an ineffective
debating society is to give far more credit than is due. Instead,
a better description would note that the organization is an anti-democratic,
anti-American and anti-Semitic disaster whose impotence is only
matched by its corruption. After all, the League of Nations achieved
some genuine successes, at least when measured by U.N. standards.
For
example, in 1921, the League settled a dispute between Finland and
Norway regarding the Åaland Islands. That same year, it peacefully
settled a disagreement between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia.
In 1923, it prevented the economic collapse of Austria and Hungary.
In 1925, the League stopped a war between Greece and Bulgaria. The
League even expelled a member for bad behavior (the Soviet Union
in 1940).
Granted,
the League ultimately amounted to an unqualified failure. Its legitimacy
was totally undermined when the United States declined to join in
1920, and its promises of eternal world peace were shattered when
the most destructive war in human history began. But even though
the League had to close up shop in humiliation, at least it never
embraced failed states or sheltered corruption as the United Nations
does today.
If
the League had operated more like the United Nations, it would have
spent the 1940s blaming the excesses of Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan on past injustices, calling on Britain to stop bombing and
end the "cycle of violence," praising the "progressive"
policies of Stalins Russia, appointing a German to chair the
Human Rights Council, trying to open trilateral talks between China,
America and Japan, warning the United States not to violate Vichy
Frances right to self-determination, and holding conferences
on racism in Manchuria and occupied Poland.
U.N.
supporters are quick to point out the world bodys accomplishments.
But, in nearly every case, credit for those successes belongs almost
entirely to America. The burden for military actions like the Korean
War and Gulf War fell upon on the United States, and, in both cases,
U.N. involvement proved to be little more than a hindrance.
Since
its founding, the United Nations has turned a blind eye to atrocities
and genocide all over the world. Cambodia 1.7 million dead;
the Iran-Iraq War 1 million dead; the Soviet-Afghan War
1 million dead; China at least 40 million dead; Rwanda
800,000 dead. The list goes on and on. Perhaps the United Nations
is too busy furiously issuing proclamations against Israel and not
paying its parking tickets to deal with important issues.
Sudan
is but the latest genocide to occur on the U.N.s watch. In
response, the United Nations has demanded that the Sudanese government
cease the killing or the world body will be left with no choice
but to
make a similar request again at a later date, and
perhaps even reflect on talking about considering taking some kind
of action after careful deliberation provided, of course,
that China doesnt stand to lose any lucrative contracts.
The
League of Nations threw in the towel after demonstrating that it
was not an effective tool for world peace. The record of the United
Nations is even more abysmal. Yet somehow, Secretary General Kofi
Annan continues to collect paychecks for his tireless labors of
furrowing his brow in a thoughtful and concerned manner, ignoring
the corruption that enriches his cronies, and turning a blind eye
to human rights abuses, all while castigating the United States
for taking "illegal" actions and lecturing the industrialized
world about "root causes."
Annan
recently remarked, "If the United Nations does not attempt
to chart a course for the world's people in the first decades of
the new millennium, who will?" While that is certainly an interesting
question, it might be, just perhaps, that nations would be better
off charting their own course rather than handing over their sovereignty
to a group of unelected, incompetent, crooked bureaucrats.
The
League of Nations was a comically ham-handed debacle. The organization
collapsed in complete failure, disgracing all who were associated
with it. But dont compare it to the United Nations. The United
Nations is in a league of its own.
George
Hawley is a Research Associate at the Center for Individual Freedom.
He is a senior at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington.
[Posted
October 7, 2004]
Return
to Current Events Index
|