Why is There a United Nations?

It is beyond me why Western Democracies continue membership in the United Nations. The U.N. Charter created by victorious Democracies over Fascism, Nazism and Japanese Imperial brutality at the end of WWII has been rendered irrelevant since the inclusion Mohammedan nations, Mohammedan sympathetic nations and despotic Third World Nations.

U.N. Charter Preamble:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

* To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

* To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

* To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

* To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

* To ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

* To employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Obviously this is a meaningless scrap of geopolitical humbug.

Here is the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the U.N. in 1948 – Hmmm … The very year Arab Mohammedan nations first tried to wipe Israel off the map):

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Despotic Communist nations made this a farce from day one; however with the inclusion of the influence of Mohammedan ruled nations in the U.N. General Assembly it is more a load of crap in 2007 than in 1948.

Anne Bayefsky writes about the total irrelevance of the United Nations; however she misses the reason that Western nations feel impelled to remain in the U.N. due the power of the Security Council. Unanimous votes (this excludes abstentions) in the Security Council are capable of mobilizing a significant military array to enforce the will of the Security Council will (but not necessarily the United Nations will comprised of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General).

The former Soviet Union’s abstention in Korean War illustrated this and the USA took full advantage to engage in a U.N. sanctioned war that ended up in a stalemate and the separation of Korea into two separate nations.

The Global lesson learned is that one veto nullifies even a majority vote of the Security Council. Therein lay the hesitation of America or any other permanent Security Council nation from departing from United Nations membership. If a Britain, France or America (three of five permanent members) should leave the U.N. the remaining permanent members (Russia and China) could lead a coalition that would be detrimental geopolitically to some nation or nations.

Thus the only way for America to abandon the U.N. is to pre-arrange a coalition to counter her enemies. Currently even Western Democratic nations are jealous of American global hegemony; therefore lay the American quandary with the United Nations.

Diplomats Ignore the Folly of Negotiating with Iran

I have read from pundits and experts alike that it is pure delusion to think the Western Democracies can negotiate anything positive with Iran. The simple truth is the Mullah ruled Islamofascist Shi’ite radical regime will in no way negotiate in good faith about anything that may contradict radical Shi’ite religious convictions about the spread of Mohammedanism and the global enforcement of Sharia Law.

In case you were unaware, Sharia Law is bad news and a contradiction of Western Democratic principles (premised on a Leftist or Conservative vision is irrelevant) to the radical Shi’ites.

And yet there are diplomats in the American State Department from both sides of the political spectrum that believe Western style diplomacy will convince Iran that the art of negotiation (give and take) can reach a beneficial solution to the current chasm that exists between Iran and America.

Michael Ledeen is one of many that delineates the reasons that talking to Iran under the current conditions will turn up zero conciliation between America and Iran. Iran’s pattern of Foreign Policy and internal affairs are set in stone under the current regime.

JRH
***********************

Talking to Iran


By MICHAEL A. LEDEEN
Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)
August 18, 2007; Page A7
Blind Conservative E-List
Posted By Don M.


For some time now, the chattering classes have debated whether the United States should negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both sides have endowed the very act of negotiating with near-mythic power.


The advocates suggest that "good relations" may emerge, while opponents warn it is somehow playing into the mullahs' hands. Both seem to believe that the three recent talks in Baghdad are historically significant, since they are said to be a departure from past practice.


That claim is false. Every administration since Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 has negotiated with the Iranians. Nothing positive has ever come of it, but most every president has come to believe that a "grand bargain" with Tehran can somehow be reached, if only we negotiate well enough.


Washington diplomats have steadfastly refused to see the Iranian regime for what it is: a relentless enemy that seeks to dominate or destroy us. This blindness afflicted the first American negotiators shortly after the 1979 revolution, and has been chronic ever since, even though Iran declared war on us in that year and has waged it ever since.


During the first negotiations in early 1979, shortly after the Revolution, the Iranians denounced American meddling, and the Americans lamented Iran's dreadful human-rights practices. The Iranian negotiator, Deputy Prime Minister for Revolutionary Affairs Ibrahim Yazdi, said that Iran had just undergone "the cleanest revolution in world history," even though mass executions were underway throughout the country.


Yet American diplomats were optimistic that a grand bargain could be struck. The Iranians wanted arms, and American military men sat down to work out the details of new sales. On the diplomatic front, Assistant Secretary of State Harold Newsom reported that: "the Iranian suspicions of us were only natural in the post-revolutionary situation but that after a transition period common interests could provide a basis for future cooperation-not on the scale of before but sufficient to demonstrate that Iran has not been 'lost' to us and to the West."


This was written almost precisely a month before the American Embassy in Tehran was seized in November, 1979. For the next 444 days, diplomats talked and talked, until, minutes before Ronald Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were ransomed out.


Five years (and a new set of hostages) later, the Reagan administration commenced secret negotiations with the mullahs, using American, Israeli and Iranian back channels. Reagan's deep personal concerns about the fate of the hostages drove the policy, and inverted the logical strategic order.


Iran was a major problem for the U.S. -- hundreds of American marines and diplomats had been massacred in Beirut by Tehran's favorite terrorist instrument, Hezbollah -- and should have been dealt with on that basis. But some American officials convinced themselves that a deal could be made with Iranian "moderates," and a group led by former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane flew secretly to Tehran, met with a few mid-level Iranian officials, and returned empty handed. As in the Jimmy Carter years, the mullahs killed Americans, but America did not respond effectively.


The George H.W. Bush administration, with the Iran-Contra scandal fresh in their minds, avoided direct negotiations with Iran, but in recent years two of its leading officials -- National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker -- have been outspoken advocates for talking to the mullahs.


The Clinton administration passionately sought rapprochement. Believing that the Iranian "moderates" had grown more powerful with the election of President Mohammed Khatami, the president and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made public amends for real and imagined American sins against the Islamic Republic, and made a series of public and secret gestures calculated to show that the U.S. bore no ill will toward the mullahs.


Iran was secretly authorized to ship weapons into Bosnia in defiance of a United Nations embargo that was formally endorsed by the Clinton administration. Russia was secretly permitted to sell weapons and supply Iran's budding nuclear program, in violation of a law coauthored by Vice President Al Gore in his Senate years. Visas were issued to Iranian wrestlers and scholars, and some Iranian funds were unblocked.


This was all evidence of the American belief that an agreement could be reached. The Iranians exploited the opportunity, provided by our invitation to ship arms to the Muslims in the Balkans, by supporting a terror network in Bosnia. Mohammed Atta trained in Bosnia, from there he went to Hamburg, and thence to the U.S. Two other 9/11 terrorists -- Ramzi Binalshibh, and Said Bahaji -- were recruited into al Qaeda in Bosnian camps. We ignored the Iranian actions.


In 1996, the Iranians were up to their necks in the terror attack against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Still, we pursued the mirage of a deal with our enemies. In the final months of the Clinton administration, former Spanish President Felipe Gonzales traveled secretly to Tehran to explore the possibilities of a new relationship. Like all the others, he made no progress.


The current administration has maintained the pattern. Despite a considerable volume of criticism of the mullahs, and open warnings of undefined consequences if Iran did not become more cooperative, various American officials and the usual private emissaries have explored the possibilities of better relations.


In 2001 and early 2002 we negotiated the future of Afghanistan after the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and although some diplomats praised Iranian "cooperation," military intelligence had hard evidence that the mullahs had sent killers into Afghanistan to attack our troops. Meetings were subsequently held with Iranian representatives in Geneva and Cyprus, and just last September, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Mr. Gonzales to try again. He returned to Tehran, and emerged empty-handed.


The current negotiations are thus part of a well-established pattern. If anything, there is far less reason for optimism than in the past, since our knowledge of Tehran's war against us -- notably in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is broader and deeper than before. The Europeans' failure to make any progress at all in their diplomatic efforts to convince Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program should further convince an honest observer that the mullahs intend to build an atomic arsenal and use it against us and our allies.


As Jonathan Swift put it, you cannot reason a man out of something that he did not reason his way into. The Iranian war against the U.S. rests upon fanatical convictions, and Tehran has no interest in resolving it at a conference table.