Home >
Humanities And Science >
Conservative
The League of Free Nations
by William Alford
While the UN has on occasion been able to grudgingly acquiesce to defending against aggression, removing the offending dictatorship has always been beyond consideration. Peace and dictatorship cannot coexist, thus there must be another way.
The Media's Portrayal of the UN-US Conflict over Iraq is Telling By William R Alford
A red flag should go up when journalists use such phrases as ‘War on Iraq' when referring to the use of force to disarm and/or remove Saddam. We are being further deprived of critical information about the motives of those who consider President Bush to be the greater threat. The UN's relevance (or lack thereof) is not being explored in any depth. Instead we are being told of an essential dispute between ‘unilateralism' and ‘reasoned diplomacy' with no available alternatives.
This is what is widely known (or suspected) and little discussed: Saddam Hussein aspires to build a new Babylonian Empire at the expense of his neighbors. He would then use captured oil reserves to manipulate the West. He has apocalyptic amounts of chemical and biological weapons. He has used them in the past on internal and external ‘enemies,' and is thus already a war criminal who should have been hanged years ago. He is also actively seeking to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.
Much of the ‘international community' publicly denies this and no amount of evidence will prompt them to say otherwise. Deep down they know differently, but that is beside the point. There are others who do concede that Saddam probably possesses and is developing WMD. They maintain, however that he can be disarmed peacefully or if not, ‘contained.' It is doubtful that even they actually believe that.
There is a larger issue involved. We see the Western Illuminati being far less critical of the likes of Saddam Hussein than of George W. Bush, as if the President is a greater threat. Indeed he is. All that the Iraqi dictator has done is start two regional wars, gassed people (in combat and domestically), torched oilfields, created rape/torture units in his military and the like. These things are insignificant in comparison to the President of the United States having the temerity to subject his foreign policy to Congressional approval rather than that of the UN.
Why are there almost daily protests against Bush and almost none against Saddam? What is it about a post-Saddam world that is too horrible for the elites here and our Mid-Eastern ‘allies' to contemplate? Why did the UN elect to allow Saddam to retain his dictatorship in 1991, thus ensuring further suffering for his people and another war? Answer: Tyranny and the misery that it brings are far more acceptable than a government that shows such blatant insubordination to the UN. [Saddam's lies and obfuscations don't count; he's merely thwarting policy, not questioning the UN's essential authority.]
Moreover, while the UN has on occasion been able to grudgingly acquiesce to defending against aggression, removing the offending dictatorship has always been beyond consideration. [The only regime that the UN has ever considered toppling is the state of Israel.] Having a government held into place by force replaced with one subject to popular mandate would set a bad precedent indeed for most UN member states, especially those in the Middle East.
Those who oppose Saddam's forcible ouster do not object because of the possibility of heavy casualties and collateral damage. Many more people have died under the UN sanctions regime than are likely to perish in the now-ongoing war. It is widely recognized that the true challenge would begin when the fighting stops. Even expressed fears of a terrorist backlash do not speak to what genuinely concerns the Left. The over-arching priority is the continued process of subordinating national will to the authority of an international body until it is globally supreme.
The reasons for this are expressed in a parallel dispute in America over federalism. The Left prefers that legislation geared toward social engineering be implemented by the central government, ideally by the unelected lifetime-serving Supreme Court. If state or locally elected officials implemented excessively high taxes and intrusiveness, the unenlightened citizenry would likely vote with their feet or ‘kick the bums out.' A choice in governments domestically and internationally mitigates against excessive power surviving for very long.
Every present and aspiring dictator knows that although tyranny offers an advantage with respect to decisive action, there is an inherent weakness in terms of economic health and creative potential. Free societies pose a threat merely by presenting the alternative. What better way to ossify a power structure than to eliminate the competition by means of instituting a singular global regime?
In such a world, finite wars between nations would be replaced by a continuous governmental war upon its citizens. Dissident voices would pose a threat to the global transition to Utopia - they would have to be silenced. Some recalcitrants would insist on keeping the products of their efforts - they would need to be punished. Economic collapse would be a certainty. War and poverty would thus be exacerbated, not abolished. [Consider the fact that more people were killed by their own governments in the twentieth century than in all of the wars combined.]
The Media would have us think that we are faced with only two choices: subordinating our national will to the UN (even when it is wrong) or ‘going it alone.' Neither alternative promises peace, security or prosperity in the long run.
A possible solution: From within or outside of the UN's rubric, those countries that are truly committed to freedom should band together. Their unabashed mission would be to consolidate liberty at home and spread it abroad, as a League of Free Nations. Cultural relativists would have us believe that tyranny is endemic to some societies. No! Freedom is man's natural state and every nation should be encouraged to find its own way to attain it. Those states willing to participate should be supported with the collective advice, financial aid and military protection of the whole.
The current crisis demonstrates that the world is already divided between dictators [and their appeasers] and those who support the cause of freedom. It must be recognized that it is dictatorship, not national sovereignty that threatens world peace. Therefore, every amount of pressure - diplomatic, economic and/or military - should be applied judiciously but relentlessly until the grip of tyranny is broken in every corner of the globe. Then and only then can there be a prospect of lasting peace and prosperity for all mankind. Then we can consider the possibility of World Government.
About the Author
A middle-aged undergraduate student at George Mason University. Also a published intern at Accuracy In Media/Academia. Pursuing a third career change, writing and thinking have been consistent interests since childhood. Focusing upon the Big Picture has been useful in keeping things in perspective, personally. Things have not always been easy, but there has been plenty of fodder for thought.
More articles by William Alford:
