Wednesday, September 20, 2000
|
Wednesday, September 20, 2000 |
| What's this going
on with the U.N.?
By AMY RILEY While most of us were painting the last strokes on this summer's canvas over Labor Day weekend, the leaders of more than 150 nations were gathering to put the first strokes on a new international canvasglobal governance. Vowing to ring in the new millennium with a new paradigm, leaders from all over the world converged in New York to cast a 21st century landscape for 20th century thinkers. While the 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit proved less draconian than online news organizations and grass-roots loops had predicted, there is cause for careful monitoring of the U.N.'s future plans. There are those in our own national government who would plow headlong into one global governing body, complete with a standing U.N. army, where American soldiers would be subjugated to U.N. superiors and edicts. There are others, like the esteemed Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who would sooner see the United States pull out all together from the U.N. than cede over American sovereignty. What seems more apparent than ever is that the 21st century is going to be all about a fundamental coming to terms with what it means to be a citizen of the United States, and also a resident of the planet Earth. Oh, "the times, they are a changin.'" In short, short form, the thrust of the new paradigm centers around sustainable growth, both economically and ecologically, eradicating world poverty, moving developing countries in to "developed" status, barrier-free trade, technology and investment, and standing in the gap on issues of human rights. It's a noble list of worthy goals with a host of "treaty" agreements aimed at luring "voluntary" support from the world's heads of state. It's up to us to seek out the fine print. One of the most talked about goals is a standing U.N. army. Despite the fact that this is proposed as a member nation endeavor, the U.S. is seen as the chief financier and the greatest source of military personnel. Truth be told, when all the global chips are laid on the table, the United States is the Goliath (with by far the biggest poker pot), and all the rest of the world wants to play David and bring the giant down. "We" are not the Philistines, yet consistently that is how the world views us and how we are portrayed, running roughshod over other nation states as the lion's share of United Nations peacekeeping forces strewn all over the globe. Many perceive the distribution of U.S. military personnel, literally, all over the world as a direct threat to national securitymyself included. Two house bills are languishing in one subcommittee representing the polar views of our leadership and of the American people. One is HR 4453, and is titled the "United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force Act of 2000." The bill, introduced by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), calls for an American commitment of "not more than 6,000 personnel" to be answerable to the Secretary General of the United Nations under the authority of the U.N. Security Council, "trained as a single unit" with other U.N. member nation volunteers, "appropriately equipped" and funded, and "rapidly deployable" for purposes of "international peace operations including civilian policing." There are 25 congressional cosponsors, including Atlanta's own Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who support President Clinton's call for a United Nations military force capable of "making and keeping peace." Asserting that most armed conflicts now occur within nation states and not between them, usually over "ethnic and religious" differences, President Clinton chides us to protect "people as well as borders." According to Clinton, "there are times when the international community must take a side not merely stand between sides." Representing a very different viewpoint is House Resolution 1146, introduced in March of 1999 by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The bill, titled "The American Sovereignty Restoration Act," calls for U.S. removal from the United Nations. HR 1146 seeks to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945. The bill would require the closure of the United States mission to the U.N., would prohibit U.S. funding of United Nations endeavors, and bars U.S. military personnel from serving under U.N. military commanders. Lots of folks stack up on both sides of this issue, and a standing U.N. military force for peacekeeping and civilian police purposes is only one aspect of the new United Nations paradigm. But suffice it to say that many people are skeptical and guarded. Kent Snyder, executive director of Liberty Study Committee, a group of U.S. congress members and nationwide activists promoting constitutional ideals, put it this way: "World peace, happiness for all... that's all good... let's say we don't differ on the ends, but we differ on the means." The consensus is, Snyder added, "that centralized power is the enemy of liberty, and history is replete with examples..." For a list of contact information
for the House subcommittee holding both of these bills, e-mail: ARileyFreePress@ Correction to last week's column: The estimated cost of the proposed bond package for new schools' construction on a $100,000 home was incorrectly listed as $60 per year. The correct estimated cost is $40 per year. The $60 figure pertains to a $150,000 home.
|
||