Eric Renderking
Fisk puts another nail in The United Nations coffin, an organization
that
should be ashamed for playing politics in this time of need.
December
31st, 2004
"End
The United Nations"
Garrenteed
to Cause Controversy…
It’s an event like this when I’m glad that I
have a website so I could write something in an effort to take out my
anger and frustration. Trust me, you don’t want to torque off a man who
has his own column…
What set me off today (and caused me to put aside my
Year End article) was the events following the Tsunami in
the Indian Ocean. At this writing, more then 118,000 people are dead.
It’s a horrible disaster, and the world should be doing everything
humanly possible to help those struck by it. With that said, I think
it’s pretty incredible that many countries are rushing in to help
however they can while deplorable at the same time pointing the finger
at other countries who they think should be doing more.
The United States has pledged an initial 35 Million Dollars, which is
just a start. Humanitarian aid is already on the way, and according to
CNN, the Bush administration is already going through the budget to see
how much more we can give… knowing full well that when all is said and
done that amount of 35 Million Dollars will approach 1 Billion Dollars.
Meanwhile, folks are already complaining. Most vocal so far is Jan
Egeland, Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency
Relief Coordinator. His complaint so far is that there are other
countries who are giving far more… when adjusted and compared based on
each nation’s Gross National Product.
"`We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich
countries,'' Egeland said. ``And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy,
really. ... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at
least how rich we have become.''
Well, if you’re going to be that way about it… how about we give
NOTHING instead? Would that make you happy Mr. Egeland? Then you would
have something really big and important to whine about. If I was
President Bush and as "evil" as he's accused of being, I would do
something Egeland would consider despicable and deplorable… more so
then what he’s been accused of by the likes of Michael “If I tell a lie
enough times, it must be true” Moore…
I would tell the world that we’ve made a list of all the countries
effected by the Tsunami… then, in a column next to every country I
would grade them on an appropriate scale on how they’ve voted for or
against us in the United Nations since September 11th, 2001. In another
column I would grade each effected country on how they’ve supported us
in The War On Terror against Iraq and Afghanistan…
Finally I would say that those who supported us the most would get a
higher percentage of aid, those who supported us the least would get a
lesser percentage of our aid… and the lowest country on the score card
would get ZERO.
There’s the controversy. I wouldn’t actually dole out the aid using
this formula; I would distribute the aid by need. But, I would be sure
to make a theatrical production of making this equation and letting the
world know of the results.
I would make this list, (Check it twice) just as a reminder that while
we have every reason to play favorites. While we have every reason to
deny our aid to some nations, we don’t hold any grudges when the chips
are down. We don’t hold the citizens of these countries hostage for
political reasons; we focus more on those who are in need first and
foremost. In times of chaos and disaster, we’re humanitarians first and
a super power nation last.
If such a disaster struck the United States, I highly doubt the nations
of the world would come to our aid like we have in the past. No doubt,
there would be comments from other countries saying: “They had this
coming, it’s God’s/Allah’s/Budda’s way.”
That’s not America… we’ve made mistakes, we’re making mistakes, and
we’ll make mistakes in the future, but I don’t think this country
intentionally makes mistakes to intentionally hurt people or with hold
aid just to teach people a lesson. We could, but we don’t and wouldn’t.
To criticize the United States for not doing enough when this country
is just getting started and isn’t finished is deplorable. Which is the
most recent reason why we should leave the United Nations.
End
It, Don’t Mend It.
Nobody has ever been able to give me an adequate excuse or reason for
why the United Nations should be allowed to operate in the United
States, nor has anyone been able to illustrate what good the United
Nations does for the benefit for the world… with the exception of
giving a platform for international intellectuals to curse the United
States, a forum for bashing their hosts for “Not Doing Enough.” Always
quick to criticize and slow to show gratitude.
I won’t even go into the issue of The International Court in this rant.
If the United Nations is doing a good job at anything, it has lousy
self-promotion. Recently what it does have is a lot of very bad press.
Take a few minutes to go through and check out the news on the “Oil For
Food Scandal” that now plagues the United Nations. Here are just a few
of the links I found in just 5 minutes using Google:
Oil-for-Food Used for Money Laundering?
Possible Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Seen in U.N.
Oil-for-Food Program.
Investigate the United Nations
Oil-for-Food Fraud.
United Nations Was Warned Early Of
Oil-for-Food Program Problem: The Clinton administration and the United
Nations were warned of a crucial problem in the oil-for-food program...
UN's 'oil for food' was a huge scam: Ottawa
has remained silent while the reputation of the world body has been
sullied by scandal.
l
That’s five minutes of doing a quick search, skimming the articles then
copy/pasting them into a word document. That doesn’t even begin to
scratch the surface of the documentation that’s available to anyone
with an ISP and a computer. Yet, folks around the world look to the
United Nations as the cure-all for the world’s problems.
The United Nations was officially formed after the Second World War, a
forum for the countries of the world to communicate with each other and
discuss the issues that plague this planet. It was meant to be an
organization that works to prevent conflict. Now apparently it’s an
organization used by rouge countries such as Iraq whose regimes use
back-room deals to conspire against some nations with the help of
others… jeopardizing world peace for profit.
My attitude is this: The United States should withdraw from The United
Nations. The United Nations has lost its vision, misplaced its goals
and become a nuisance to the United States and allies such as The
United Kingdom and Australia. Granted, it’s convenient to have a
location where each country sends an Ambassador to represent it’s
nation for the occasions when issues need to be addressed, such as when
Colin Powell presented the United State’s case for going to war with
Iraq with evidence that Saddam wasn’t complying with the sanctions he
agreed to when he surrendered during Gulf War I.
This incarnation of the International Self-Governing authority is done.
Yet I can’t be convinced yet that the concept’s time hasn’t come yet.
After World War I, the League of Nations was an awesome idea but was
made inept when Woodrow Wilson was unable to bring the United States
into the organization. It was a phenomenal concept at the end of World
War II… yet has become a breading ground for anti-American sentiment
and international corruption.
If The United Nations is going to use this disaster as an excuse to
stick it to The United States for not doing enough, then maybe it’s
time to cut our ties with this organization once and for all. There
does need to be an organization to help coordinate the relief efforts,
but not one that does a better job at criticizing one of the nations
that are busy trying to help.
This view isn’t about national pride, I actually believe the survivors
and victims of this disaster deserve something better then a bickering
organization to help them out in this time of need.
