by Sukrit Sabhlok

Created on: January 30, 2009

The case against the United Nations grows stronger every day, but in many ways it's the same argument all over again. In 1996, conservative Senator Jesse Helms wrote a scathing critique of the U.N. in an article published in Foreign Affairs. He slammed its power grabs and out of control bureaucracy leading to rising costs, and offered an ultimatum: either the U.N. implements reform orAmerica withdraws its support. Hardly a word of what Helms' wrote over ten years ago has changed in its applicability.

One problem with Helms' piece, however, was that he didn't go so far as to explain how America's warfare state is intimately linked to the U.N. If he had done so, he might have been able to make out a stronger argument. As libertarians we can venture, with characteristic courage, where the late Senator Helms did not. We can take heart in this respect, with the sentiments expressed by prominent personalities such as Ludwig von Mises, Doug Bandow and Ron Paul, who have all expressed varying degrees of doubt as to the U.N.'s effectiveness in bringing about durable peace.

It is worth making a general point about how the U.N. operates. If we look beyond the glossy publicity proclaiming the noble spirit of cooperation found at the U.N., we find that it operates in much the same way as the American Congress. Undisguised logrolling ("I'll vote for your boondoggle if you'll vote for mine"), shady backdoor deals and incestuous relationships with Non-Governmental Organizations, are ever-present features. The inevitable outcome of such machinations is that politics - not principle - wins the day when it comes to deciding where and when the U.N. will intervene. This in itself should make us think differently about the United Nations.

But the real argument against the U.N. is much more terrifying. American Presidents have been increasing their powers at the expense of Congress and the Judiciary, especially in the area of foreign affairs, since the founding of the Republic. But since 1945, they have been assisted in this respect by the U.N. While constitutional scholars generally agree that the Constitution permits only Congress to commit the nation to war, Presidents have in recent times ignored this provision and have committed troops willy-nilly in aid of their ambition to make America the policeman of the world.

The first major instance of this was by President Harry Truman, who set the precedent by committing Americato war against North Korea, ostensiblyto enforce a U.N. resolution.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>