Friday, July 18, 2008

United Nations Is Logically Futile And Evil

Imagine you wish to have a neighborhood that is free of crime - so you gather a committee of neighborhood leaders to discuss various plans and settle disputes before they escalate. In this meeting, you take the position that "compromise" is paramount and that anything is negotiable. You take the position that no one type of person is better than any other and therefore you welcome any type of leader to discuss crime, including criminals. In fact, you give the largest and most powerful criminals veto power over any proposed resolutions. So, for example, say a crime is committed and a member of the committee wishes to take action by working with the police department to procure evidence and encourage witnesses to come forward, but to no one's surprise, it is immediately vetoed by the criminal leaders. Out of frustration, the committee member proposes a "resolution" stating only that the committee opposes the crime, but the criminals, not wishing to set an anti-crime precedent, logically veto it. How effective would such a committe be? How is this fictitious committee any different than the United Nations?

Note that justice is not virtuous in and of itself. It is virtuous because without it you could not survive. If one refused to acknowledge evil or even the possibility that evil exists, how long would one survive? If life is your goal, judging what is good and what is bad for you and acting accordingly is a matter of life and death. This is yet another example of why when morality is defined objectively, that is, based on life as the standard of value, the moral is the practical. In other words, justice is practical and the decision not to judge is not only immoral but impractical. This principle explains why the United Nations can only further evil. The organization is predicated on the idea that no nation is better than any other and that compromise with evil is necessary.

For the latest example, see this article which reports that opponents of Robert Mugabe's murderous dictatorship in Zimbabwe have been the victims of violence and intimidation in the wake of protests of the latest phony election:

Reports of violence and intimidation by backers of the ruling ZANU-PF party have been rising as the government tries to quell opposition to Mugabe's rule after years of harsh treatment for his foes and an economic crash that has left the one-time breadbasket short of food.

"There has been a high increase in abductions, beatings and rapes since ZANU-PF claimed it had won the 'election' with a resounding victory," the opposition said in a
statement. At least 80 opposition supporters were killed before the run-off,
and the opposition says more than 10 have been killed since.

Men in army uniforms abducted opposition lawmaker-elect Naison Nemadziva at gunpoint Monday and his whereabouts remained unknown, an opposition statement said. Nemadziva was seized outside a court that was to hear a ruling party challenge to his winning of a legislative seat in March 29 national elections.

Among nations that value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should such a scenario cause even a moment's delay in denouncing Mugabe's tactics as the epitome of evil?

In New York, the U.S. set the stage for a potentially caustic debate at the Security Council by proposing U.N. sanctions that would require nations to freeze the financial assets of Mugabe and 11 of his top officials and to bar their travel outside Zimbabwe.

The draft resolution would also call on Mugabe's government to immediately begin negotiating to form a unity government with the opposition and to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid. But Tsvangirai said Wednesday that he wouldn't participate in talks under current conditions.

The council has adopted nonbinding resolutions condemning Zimbabwe's election violence and intimidation of opposition supporters. But South Africa and two members with veto power_ China and Russia — have opposed tougher action.

Such futility is logically necessary, and the United Nations like our imagined neighborhood organization is doomed to failure because it is predicated on a contradiction. The contradiction is the idea that principles and morality do not matter. The contradiction is the idea that ideology is irrelevant and that nations must somehow seek "peace" at any cost, i.e., by abandoning principle and moral judgment and accepting compromise and appeasement as the only virtue. The United States should immediately pull out of the United Nations, cut off all funding, and send these tin-pot dictators back to live in their own miserable countries. It is a matter of life and death for Americans to demand that our government not abandon its sovereignty to this deadly organization.

No comments: