Friday, March 07, 2003

The Security Council is Meaningless, Much Like the Rest of the United Nations

Today's events at the Security Council show us why that body is now, as it has always been, meaningless. The incredibly impractical idea of having world governments get together to keep world peace, regardless of the nature of these governments, has shown us the same results over and over again. Free countries cannot deal with unfree governments in such a manner because their interests are diametrically opposed to one another.

This was fundamentally clear in the case of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was on the brink of total collapse when Hitler invaded in 1941 and likely would have totally fallen apart under the German onslaught had the United States not stepped in and aided Stalin. I'm not saying that we ought to have let Hitler take the country over, but we also should not have helped Stalin in any way whatsoever. What was gained by dealing with Stalin? Did the United States gain any security for itself or the rest of the world? If you think living on the brink of total annihilation was safer then apparently we have different ideas of safety.

The point is that compromising with evil, which is what totalitarianism and all forms of statism are, only serves evil and does nothing for good. The whole concept of the United Nations is predicated upon this faulty logic. It equates the dictatorship in China with a free country like the United States by giving them equal power in the Security Council. This is ridiculous and an insult to all the people who worked to discover the idea of individual liberty and then fought to form governments that would secure and protect it from the likes of these despots we now have (not surprisingly) as our enemies.

The Security Council can provide no legitimacy for anything as the entire idea of a world wide "Peace-keeping" organization is unprecendented historically. Not to mention that just because nine countries may agree on something says nothing as to whether those nine countries are right or wrong. Peace can only occur when all countries respect individual rights and protect them. Otherwise it is incumbant upon those countries that do, to protect themselves, by whatever means neccessary, from those countries that don't. Why would you expect a country that doesn't respect the rights of its own citizens to respect the rights of any country? The Security Council will never realize this as it is made up of free and unfree countries, and where compromise can only mean surrendering to that which is evil in the world.

No comments: