The UN is committing suicide, vote by vote and debate by debate, because it’s an anachronistic fraud. An international organization works to the extent that it a) reflects reality and b) can enforce its decisions. The UN worked for a brief period after WWII. Its main members possessed power and were willing to use it (as they’d shown in the recent war). None of that exists today. Today the UN exists to counteract the power of the United States, to libel Israel, and to give a voice to every ruling thug in the world. That is, once the organization has lost its real reason for being, it becomes manipulable by anyone who can frighten the demoralized members. The UN’s discrediting was well advanced when Arafat showed up in a made-up uniform and wearing a sidearm, and was not thrown out by the security guards. Even then, the UN had lost its mission, and the permanent members of the Security Council had ceased to be the power-wielding peace-keepers that they were supposed to be and that gave legitimacy to the whole organization.

As to the UN’s recent behavior, it’s only what one should expect from people who know they’re acting in a third-rate dramatic production but desperately wish to be taken seriously, as though their stage were real life. The real action henceforth and for a long time to come will be between the United States (representing what’s left of Western Civilization) and the Muslim world. If the UN insists on continuing to exist, well, it’ll be the playpen of France, Belgium, Cameroon, and the other Great Powers.

Let me see how this works, the US is going to war against Iraq even though all its arguments, concerning just war, and reasons for war, have been discredited, yet France is the country accused of megalomania because it stands with the angels advocating peace. ( not that discrediting was required, since those who act for such a grave end as war must prove the viability of that end, not the reverse )

So let me trade names in the opening thread post to see if I can make it more intelligible.

It certainly is remarkable: the Americans, such as the Bush family, who look to the United Nations as the matrix of the coming one-world government, and thus as the leading salvific force in today’’s world, seem to have been doing everything they can to discredit the UN by rendering its most solemn resolutions meaningless.

The bizarre conduct of these globalist manquéés Americans raises the possibility that perhaps they are not engaging in rational, self-interested behavior at all, but in an act of megalomania.’

But maybe we have the answer for this very remarkable behavior, the vacuum opens a power void into which American hegemony will inevitably insert itself, and thus be more controllable.

In his article, Lawrence questions why the Globalists and certain countries are taking actions in the UN that seem to be discrediting the institution. Hans Blix and Mouhamed Al-Baradei downplay Saddam Hussein’s open breaches of the 1991 Ceasefire agreement and Resolution 1441, the 17th resolution which has been ignored or breeched by the Ba’athist regime in Iraq. Meanwhile the French and Russians threaten to veto any resolution enforcing prior ones, for which they voted. While these stances have been explained by the neoconservative press as mere institutional pacifism and protection of business interests, there are more serious agendas driving these actions.

The US is both the only superpower and the hegemon among western nations. Our GDP is one-quarter of Gross World Income. The paltry 3% of GDP we spend on the military is more than the aggregate GDP of entire blocks of nations. The British Empire at its relative height never had this power. Unless the Transnational Progressives can control and constrain this power via the UN and institutional pressure on the U.S., the UN is a glorified debating club. No Global Government can work unless we are constrained.

It may be beneficial to transnational progressivism (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html) for the UN, as currently constructed to fail. The UN has no real power. If it cannot act or constrain America, it must be replaced or reconstructed. Just as the institutional failure of the Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union created pressure for a reconstitution of the American government, resulting in the Constitution Convention, the vacillation of the UN will create pressure for a stronger centralized world government. The standard argument proposed by many neoconservatives is that the UN has become the League of Nations; i.e. that it is a worthless debating society constraining American action. This argument will be appropriated as an excuse to promote a more powerful institution. The failure of the League of Nations did not discredit the idea of world governance. Rather it called for a redoubling of efforts. The idea of sovereignty was discredited in many circles. The blind opposition of the Anti-War right undermined reasonable opposition to the UN. Even Senator Robert Taft voted for the UN Charter. This can happen again.

The Transnational Progressives hope to use the current crisis to strengthen the UN. As currently constructed, the UN faces two structural problems, inequalities between member states (i.e. the U.S. has too much power) and the vacillation of the UN due to the competing interests of member states. Having a relatively independent and unaccountable bureaucracy can solve these dilemmas. This has been the solution of the Transnational Progressives in the past. Despite the competing interests and expansion of the EU, it has become more centralized and rigid due to the bureaucrats in Brussels. If a mere trading association can usurp sovereignty and centralize power, what are the limits of the growth of an open world government like the United Nations?

By going to the UN with our resolution to attack Iraq, we have crossed the Rubicon. The UN will never be the same. The institutional pressure for its growth and centralization will not abet. If we continue with the attack and succeed, the Transnational Progressives will use the fall of Iraq to further discredit sovereignty and the UN’s prior inaction to push for an efficient bureaucracy. If the US attacks Iraq and fails or we have a quagmire, the Transnational Progressives will blame our “unilateral” approach. On the other hand, if we are prevented from acting, (1) the UN will have contained the U.S., (2) our standing in the world will decline and we will be forced to depend on our allies or the UN, (3) the precedent will have been set that no aggressive action may occur without UN approval.

The only solution is for the U.S. to leave the UN. It is a globalist institution formed by communists and run by an alliance between transnational progressive bureaucrats and third-world countries seeking to get money from the US.

Unfortunately, to do this, President Bush must first make an argument for attacking Iraq based on national interest and re-impose national sovereignty as an ideal. He is constitutionally and ideologically opposed to both. The only solution is for paleoconservatives to support the war on the grounds of national interest and make that case to the American people. President Bush can do the right thing, but only if there is a groundswell of support for it. Paleoconservatives cannot afford to associate themselves with the anti-war Transnational Progressives and Communists in a myopic opposition to Americans defending our national interest.

Thanks to Ron for the disturbing analysis. In effect, he has applied to the UN a kind of analysis I’ve often made of liberalism, i.e, he’s saying that it’s superficial to believe that because the UN project has overreached or failed or embarrassed itself, that that means it’s finished or defeated. The very nature of the left (like the liquid metal assassin in Terminator II) is that it just keeps reconstituting itself and moving forward, no matter how many times it is apparently discredited and scattered.

Ron writes: “By going to the UN with our resolution to attack Iraq, we have crossed the Rubicon. The UN will never be the same. The institutional pressure for its growth and centralization will not abet. “

This is a devastating point, and accords with, while going beyond, something I have thought all along. Bush thought he was using the UN for his own purposes, but by seeking the UN’s sanction for our self-defense, he was actually establishing the principle (though he denied doing so) that nations do not have the right to defend themselves, and that the use of force is only legitimate if the UN approves of it. This is a disaster, amounting to a major milestone on the road to global government, which as a result of Bush’s action has received a tremendous impetus. Furthermore, it is typical of Bush, who, in pursuing “conservative” goals (like war) by yielding to leftist sensitivities and principles (like UN approval), ends up advancing leftism.

Thanks to Ron and Lawrence for a very insightful analysis. The comparison of the Tranzis to the liquid metal assassin of “Terminator II” is particularly apt. So many thought the left had reached its end with the collapse of the Soviet empire 12 years ago. They could not have been more wrong. As usual, George W. Bush adavances the cause of the Tranzi faith while mouthing Christian and conservative phrases. Ditto for the Republican establishment. Is he really that clueless, or is he something much worse?

Pat gives a better reason:

“Why the French Act as They Do” by Patrick Buchanan

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:kekpTpz9438C:www.theamericancause.org/++%22WHY+THE+FRENCH+BEHAVE+AS+THEY+DO&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

F. Salzer brings up Buchanans idea that opposition to the US is just real politique by the French. This assumption is common among the realist camp in Foreign Relations, who discount the role of ideology in foreign affairs.

There are fundamental problems with this. If the goal were simply to contain the hyperpower, one would expect the British to go along. From the reign of Henry the VII, the only constant in British foreign policy has been its goal of ensuring that there be dominant power in Europe or the world that can invade them.
However, the both the Tories and the Blair government support deposing Saddam Hussien.

The truth is that the British understand that we are in a clash of civilizations. The Islamic World wishes to dominate us. This is very different than standard politics where we deal with the actions of nation-states.
The British understand the need to keep the Islamic world divided and militarily weak. The French believe in appeasement because they hate being a Second-rate power compared to the US, and fear their own Muslim population.

Ron

PS. We cannot discount French opposition due to the money they make off current oil contracts and illegal weapons sales. The French make money off the Ba’athist regime and have no desire to have their perfidy exposed.

The sweet dessert of irony that Mr. Auster has pointed to in the window is mouth watering. Hopefully the reliably unreliable France—famous for its desserts—will put the cherry on this dessert by opting out of the invasion.

(My heritage is French.)

Here’s the puzzling thing to me: Tony Blair - the one who is so enthusiastic about destroying what few shreds remain of traditional England, who is so insistent on importing Muslims into the UK (whose Muslim problem is nearly as bad as France’s) - has forsaken his Tranzi pals at the EU and joined G.W. Bush in advocating force to topple Saddam’s regime. As I stated in another thread, the UK is for all intents and purposes a totalitarian regime run by a club of entrenched Tranzis - complete with “Diversity Directorates” and other Orwellian controls ruthlessly enforced on the native white population (who apparently have been brainwashed into the acceptance of their own demise much like many of the Jews in Auschwitz). Why is Blair now willing to gamble on the final handover of British sovereignty to the EU - an apparent lifelong ambition? Of course, he might have set his ambitions higher than the mere EU. Discrediting the existing UN (as described by Ron) will enable Blair and “W” to push for its replacement with something far more powerful and effective. Perhaps we are witnessing a power struggle within the leadership of the Tranzi NWO (Bush & Blair vs. EU and UN).