I heard a right-wing conspiracy theorist explain it like this:
“Worldy” is the opposite of “Godly”, therefore the World is inherently evil and Satanic. Anything which symbolizes or represents the World–be it environmentalism (“Gaia worship”) or the United Nations–is Satanic. The USA is God’s Country and is set apart from from the rest of the world, and any effort to unite the World will be an evil conspiracy.
I can’t remember if this guy mentioned the Anti-Christ, but certainly a lot of Americans believe the UN will be the vehicle for the AC’s bid to take over the World.
OK. This is the best I can do, sorry. Baehr and Gordenker’s book, “The United Nations at the End of the 1990s” (3rd ed.) (MacMillan Press, 1999) refers to the enormous US government effort to facilitate the San Francisco Conference, which included representatives from every US governmental department which had survived the war:
So there was enormous interest, at least, which suggests some public support in the US. Certainly I doubt Truman would have stuck his neck out as far as he did to support the UN unless he had some goodwill from the American public behind him. But I concede that I haven’t conclusively proved this.
I tried to do a google search on this, but most of the stuff which comes up is from kooky anti-UN conspiracists.
Mojo asks:
I was quite amazed at how American press, and people on these boards, reacted to this, when The Economist on 8 September 2001 reported it so differently. The Economist heaped blame on various NGO interest groups. (I’ll post a quote from this edition on this in a few hours.)
SuaSponte:
But that - collective security, I mean - was only one aspect of its charter. And in that regard, the establishment of a Military Staff Committee to lead UN armies has never been utilised, despite some murmuring from Russia in the Gulf War. This is a key element of its charter which has never been initiated post Cold War, because of American disinclination to allow its troops to be placed under a foreign commander. You can’t blame Cold War rivalries for that failure.
Except of course money towards those organisations within the UN has yet to be paid by the US, because the UN has a central budget - http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch6/ch6.htm This link provides the UN’s answers to questions on its spending.
Incidentally, security and peace-keeping go hand in hand: see Jett’s book, “Why Peacekeeping Fails” (1999, Palgrave Press), where he says, correctly:
You can’t have the “good” humanitarian stuff without the “bad” security stuff, in many situations.
december says:
Not true. Shawcross’ book, "Deliver Us from Evil: Warlords and Peacekeepers in a World of Endless Conflict (2000, Bloomsbury Publishing) says:
The exchange between Adlai Stevenson and the Soviet Ambassador Zorin in the UN helped turn the tide of world public opinion against the Soviets.
The United Nations Emergency Force II monitored the Egyptian -Israeli border from 1973-1979. These countries are now at peace.
From 1978-1982, the UN Interim Froce in Lebanon maitained peace between Lebabon and Israel, until Israeli forces"cut thorugh UNIFIL lines on their way to Beirut" (Baehr and Gordenker at 72-73).
That’s not peace in the region, but its some peace.
In 1993, UNTAC tried to bring peace to the country, at a cost of US$2 billion, with some success (described by some sources as a “high point in multi-dimensional peacekeeping” , although hardly universally so - Jett at 153).
So, the lack of political will to oppose the Khmer Rogue was not confined to the UN.
Lost me on that one.
Incorrect. From Shawcross at 102-103:
An agreement was reached to reinstall the democratically elected government, which fell through when US forces were scared away by threats from dockside workers touting placards saying they would turn Haiti into another Somalia. Not the US military’s, nor Bill Clinton’s, shining moment.
This was a mess, but wasn’t it a NATO mess?
I disagree, again. The creation of the International Criminal Court, with its inherent deterrance on would be war criminals, brings the world closer to peace through the exercise of impartial law upon dictators and war criminals.
And if you don’t agree with that, surely you’ll agree that something is better than nothing: East Timor and Cyprus immediately spring to mind.
sqweels writes:
Yes, I see that too. Jesse Helms, especially, who has described the UN as “the nemesis of millions of Americans”.
The central budget accounts for only 12% of UN spending. Two-thirds of UN funds come from voluntary contributions from member states, not from mandatory assessments.
Sorry, you are correct. Serves me right for relying on faulty memory. I am trying to determine whether the US actually pays for any of its contributions to these organisations…
Most Americans are not anti UN, but most don’t really spend any time on it. The “know nothing” crowd likes to have a few objects of paranoia around, and the UN is a perfect target for their narrow minded xenophobia. There are those politicians who play on this, and there you have it.
The UN is very useful, even as just a “debating society” in that any country can feel as if is being given a hearing. Well, any country that is a “country” by UN standards. Taiwanese need not apply, as an example.
Oh, please. So anyone who actually knows about the UN’s actions must support it, by virtue of the fact that they’re intelligent and informed individuals? Most of the “know nothing” crowd has no opinion, because they - like the name implies - know nothing. Dislike for the UN isn’t based on xenophobia, it’s based on skepticism that the UN is actually doing anybody any good.
…and then we have this. Could I get a cite, please, confirming that all these people think the UN is a construct of Satan and will bring on Armageddon?
You have to ratify the ICC to be able to work as a judge (neither afghanistan (which wasn’t even recognized as a government by the UN, not that it matters anymore anyway), iraq or china have any intent to do so). The american bar association sent someone to talk to congress in 2000 to try to set the record straight about the lies. I guess he wasn’t listened to.
Any time an american sets foot on another countries terratory he becomes subject to that countries law. Doesn’t anyone remember Michael Fay? or those 2 girls in afghanistan who were arrested for selling bibles. Or the american seargent in a japanese jail right now for rape?
Anyway, this post isn’t directed at anyone, i just don’t understand how arguments that weak are taken seriously.
Of course a “one world government” isn’t realistically going to happen for upwards of a century, but imagine for a minute if the U.S. Constitution applied to the entire world.
I don’t remember anyone here objecting to the marine being convicted of rape in a Japanese court. Most people objected to someone being punished for selling bibles or canned for vandalism because we consider it barbaric. For the most part I don’t think Americans have a problem with the laws of a foreign land applying to American citizens while they are there. I don’t think the ICJ can really be compared to the above situations.
To echo MGibson, rape is a serious crime, and I don’t care whether the accused is an American soldier or not. Are you arguing that because he is an American soldier, he should not be triable for rape under Japanese law?
The right to bear arms. Great. No thanks. I come from a country where the government taxed us to collect our firearms and destroy them, which was a very popular move amongst the electorate.
No I don’t. I’m just saying imagine. The UN is represents governments, not people. It might be characterized as a “global senate” whereas what is needed is a global “house of representatives” where the people elect representatives directly. (Let’s see… make it 1000 seats with “districts” of 6 million people each, so some smaller countries would have to be lumped together to form districts). The beauty part is that only countries that allow free and fair elections will be represented, so that leaves China et al out for the time being.
no. im attacking the position held by the author of getusout.com. he claims that it is immoral for americans to be tried in other countries, but that happens all the time.
his position was
World government through the United Nations is a serious threat to the freedom of all Americans. Imagine being held prisoner in a foreign land and tried in an international court with judges from such countries as Afghanistan, China, or Iraq.
which is wrong on multiple leves. People are already tried in foreign courts by foreign judges for violent crimes. How is the ICC different?
I’ll reiterata an idea I’ve had for the last 17 years for improving international integration, and that is to encorage the development of regional federations. Europe is leading the way–the adoption of a common currency is a major step–and now there is an African Union. One can imagine regions such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, Southern Asia (excluding India), and the Arabs following the same path at their own pace. The U.S. is already a regional federation and would remain on its own along with China, India, Russia, Japan, etc.
I’m glossing over a tremendous number of problems that would crop up both within and among these theoretical superstates, but the high profile of their governments would force them to be responsible actors, in contrast to fly-by-night dictators of backwater nations.