Cómo desmantelar la ONU [REPOSICIÓN]

Hay que hacerlo “por estética”, incluso por inservible:

A sensible policy requires that the American government every day make efforts to promote among Infidel countries and peoples an understanding of how the UN has been infiltrated, and essentially commandeered, by the forces of Islam: the Islamintern, it might be called. And then to minimize the power, the respect, and the legitimacy still accorded to the UN, this most corrupt and corrupting of institutions. (…)

Fitzgerald thinks that “Unlike the League of Nations, it will not be closed down. But it should be ignored or mocked.” For once, I am not sure I totally agree with Hugh Fitzgerald, a man I otherwise hold in very high esteem. There are those who argue that the UN is useless, that it costs billions of dollars to maintain, without any proof that this helps to ensure world peace. I disagree. I think the UN can be quite useful. To our enemies, that is. It is easy to say that we should remain members of the UN and just “ignore” it, but I’m afraid this won’t work out. There will always be people within the West who take the UN seriously, and in reality, some of its resolutions will influence our domestic policies.

¿Alternativas?

The number of UN member states that are full-fledged democracies or “fully free” according to Freedom House is 88. (…) We could create a Democratic Union, where only democratic states could become members.

Another possibility is an expansion of NATO. Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, has argued along these lines.

Es decir, crear una unión de democracias o expandir la OTAN. Por cierto, para quienes se rieron de Aznar cuando propuso integrar a Israel en la OTAN:

“The main purpose of NATO should remain to collectively preserve our democracies. The new mission should be clear: to combat jihadism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” “I don’t believe in appeasement against terrorism. I don’t believe in negotiation with terrorism. I believe in the necessity to fight against terrorists. It is a very serious mistake to negotiate with terrorism. Terrorists should be frightened and defeated, and this is possible. No other policy exists for me.”

“If defending our own values against the radical Islamists is the future of NATO, we must change the way the Alliance is conceived geographically and open its doors to those nations that share our values, that defend them on the ground, and that are willing to join in the fight against jihadism. Thus, NATO should invite Japan, Australia, and Israel to become full members.” “For me, Israel is a vital part of the Western world.”

Yo no veo necesario integrar a Israel en la OTAN -aunque tampoco nada extraño, está incluso Turquía- por que no sirve para nada, como dice Fjordman:

Besides, NATO hasn’t always worked that well in practice, either. The attacks on the embassies of NATO member Denmark following the Muhammad cartoons didn’t trigger any response from NATO, although it was pretty close to an act of war. The Western world did not rally around Denmark, nor did NATO declare that these attacks on one member state would be viewed as an attack on all member states. This inaction confronted with physical attacks by Islamic thug states such as Iran and Syria was a shameful act of appeasement that is going to cost us dearly.

Otro problema es qué hacer con China y Rusia. Aunque no puedan estar dentro, no se las puede dejar fuera, dado su peso. Así que se propone formar alianzas sobre la marcha, sin necesidad de crear una institución específica.

Leelo: Farewell to the United Nations?

MAS:

Here’s a list of the things we know about the UN:

  • The organization is massively corrupt, from top to bottom.
  • UN officials used the Oil-For-Food program to enrich themselves and actively subvert the foreign policy of the United States, as well as prop up the tyrant Saddam.
  • The UN would like to tax everyone in the world to fund its corrupt activities, so that it will no longer have to come cap in hand to the Congress and the taxpayers of America.
  • The UN, along with a large chunk of the Left in this country, believes that the laws of the United States (and any other country) are and should be subordinate to “international law” which is whatever the unaccountable nabobs at Turtle Bay say it is.
  • The structure of the United Nations guarantees that its agenda and procedures will be controlled by the worst undemocratic regimes in the world.
Be Sociable, Share!

2 Comments

Dejar una contestacion

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada.


*