Click Here to Visit The
Abigail Adams Project
Website
www.AbigailAdamsProject.org
 What is the purpose of the UN?
Q - What is the purpose and function of the United Nations, when and why was it started and how does it benefit us
as a nation?
Answer provided by Cheryl K. Chumley, Journalist/columnist
A - The United Nations was officially established on Oct. 24, 1945, with the ratification of its founding charter.
Ratification is the final step of bringing a treaty or international agreement to fruition. Prior to this charter
ratification (which America did approve, by the way), a meeting of 50 nations' heads had occurred in San Francisco,
Calif. The date of this meeting, where the charter proposals were solidified, signed and prepared for ratification,
was June 26, 1945. America participated in the process of forming the United Nations from start to finish. For a
more thorough introduction, visit http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm.
The United Nations was created, according to its own statements at http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm, "to help stabilize international relations and give
peace a more secure foundation." In other words, the global government's founding premise was to support
peaceful endeavors world-wide.
Those are the basic facts: Now come the controversies.
The charter itself, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/, has been viewed by many as antithetical to the U.S.
Constitution, spirit of America and Founding Father beliefs (recall, for example, George Washington's simple
entreaty to avoid entangling foreign alliances). That the United States signed and ratified this document at all
in 1945 was a matter of deep contention; creation of the global body came on the heels of the failed League of
Nations, a similar formation of international government that was supposed to prevent future world wars but was
seen at the time by many American patriots and strict constructionists as contrary to our sovereign system. This
is how some, like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), view the United Nations and its charter today: an unwelcome intrusion
upon America's Constitution and founding beliefs.
To decide for oneself if the United Nations is in line or in direct opposition to our American ideals and
government, one must first, of course, possess a basic understanding of our founding documents and our Founding
Fathers' statements and views. But to decide whether the United Nations has strayed from its original agenda of
furthering world peace, and has stepped into issues of governance and politics that were not understood in 1945 as
part and parcel of its areas of responsibility, less research is needed. Just look at the charter and compare its
original reasons for being to what the United Nations does and seeks in terms of international compliance
today.
For a brief summary, go again to http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm and read through the "major achievements" of the
United Nations since its creation. Most have little if anything to do with the promotion of world-wide peace.
Number four on the list is promoting development; number five, promoting human rights; six, protecting the
environment; eight, promoting independence; nine, strengthening international law; ten, settling via the
judiciary international disputes; 24, reducing effects of natural disasters. These are but a few of the list of
50 and the big question to ask while reading these U.N. actions and agendas is whether America's involvement
with accomplishing such violates the law and spirit of the Constitution, i.e., compromises our nation's ability
to govern itself absent outside influence.
Two additional items to consider: First, the United States funds all U.N. activities to the tune of 22 percent to
25 percent of the body's total annual budget, and second, most of the nations that are officially part of the U.N.
system of governance are hostile to America and American culture. (One can visit the U.S. State Dept. Internet site
and research our own government's classification of these countries that are aligned with the United Nations to
realize that most govern in direct opposition to our nation's ideals, via for example, socialism or dictatorships.)
The question to ponder here is whether America's funding of the United Nations constitutes indirect support of
nations that may in fact seek, to varying degree, destruction of our country's constitutional system that is based
on regard for individual rights. For example, is it worthwhile or even ethical for America to continue funding the
United Nations in the face of the Oil-for-Food scandal, a current and on-going investigation into corrupt U.N.
practices and financial kick-backs that allegedly involve the likes of the global body's highest ranking official,
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as well as several foreign nations?
This leads to the issue of why the United Nations benefits America. Those in favor of the United Nations say
America, the wealthiest nation in the world, has an obligation to help provide for the less fortunate in the world,
as well as a responsibility to participate in the "international community" that has theoretically replaced the
idea of national sovereignty these past few years. Politics plays no small role here; the United States supposedly
benefits with the trade of say, dollars for democracy, in terms of opening trade or securing our own system of free
government.
But even these reasons are debatable. The first, dealing with the obligations of the United States to provide for
the world's less fortunate, reeks of socialist principle and mixes or confuses moral responsibilities with the
proper role of government. The second, the ever-advancing notion of regard for the international body at the
expense of national sovereignty, seems in direct violation of our Founding Father documents and ideals. Recall
George Washington's caveat: How can America avoid entangling alliances yet wholly participate in a global
government? How, in addition, can America uphold its Constitution at the same time abide the U.N. Charter? These
are two very crucial questions those opposed to America's participation in the United Nations have asked for
years.
As for the third benefit America receives in return for involvement with the United Nations, the basic issue to
ponder is this: Could America accomplish this same by funding other nations directly, without involvement of the
United Nations? The answer is not only yes, but also, we already do. America provides billions annually for various
foreign aid and assistance packages, most of which are tied at the purse string with stipulations that these
receiving nations form and abide plans to develop free systems of governance within their borders. For further
insight into how much we supply other nations, visit http://thomas.loc.gov and type in "foreign aid," "international assistance," or some
similar phrase into the search engine and scan through the bills introduced and passed, both past and
present.
One might conclude, then, that it is not a question of what benefits America receives from the United Nations or a
question of how much America needs the United Nations, but rather the other way around: how much the United Nations
receives from America and how much the United Nations needs America.
Cheryl K. Chumley, a former award-winning investigative journalist and columnist, contributes regularly to several
Internet news and opinion services and writes predominantly on issues that run contrary to the Constitution,
Judeo-Christian principle and free-market ideal. She may be reached at ckchumley@aol.com.
Click Here to Visit The
Abigail Adams Project
Website
www.AbigailAdamsProject.org
|
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Google Bookmarks
Ma.gnolia
