UNM Israel Alliance

Bernard Glick, published in the Oregon Stump on Dec. 28, 2009

Over the past 60 years, the political architecture and political mathematics of the United Nations have changed drastically. Not only has the number of non-permanent members in the Security Council been increased from six to 10, but the pivotal position in the General Assembly once held by Latin America is now held by Third World countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. They have hijacked the U.N. and transformed it into one of the most anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic organizations on the planet.

They are also determined to make the U.N. the substitute for sovereignty and the surrogate for a state’s decision-making institutions. Except when their own interests are at stake, they preach that the Security Council is the government of the Earth and the General Assembly the parliament of mankind.

The United States can keep the Security Council at bay because it has a veto there. But in the veto-free General Assembly, America, which pays 20 percent of the United Nations’ regular budget and about a third of its peacekeeping budget, has only four options: Either it abstains on a resolution, or it supports one it doesn’t like, or it introduces one it does like, or it waters it down to utter ineffectiveness in order to get the two-thirds vote required to pass a resolution in a General Assembly that is unrecognizably different from the one the U.N.’s founders envisaged in San Francisco in 1945. The situation is now so bad that it forced John Bolton, when he was the United States ambassador to the United Nations, to remark: “Many people want me to be the U.N.’s ambassador to the U.S. That is not my job. I am the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and my primary duty is to advance U.S. foreign policy.”

States, like individuals, can be inert. They tend to cling to policies and processes long after they have ceased serving intended purposes. One example is America’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Only God knows why the United States still belongs to NATO. It is a Cold War anachronism whose only purpose was to deter Soviet aggression in Western Europe. The Soviet Union is gone, but Europeans still want America to help them whenever they get into trouble. However, they have neither the means nor the will to help America when it gets into trouble.

Another example of how inertia triumphs over intelligence is America’s membership in the United Nations. Although the United States was one of the organization’s founding members, it should separate itself from that body. And while it is doing that, it ought to encourage the United Nations to move its headquarters from New York City to a place more congenial to its orientation.

Whatever usefulness the U.N. had in its early years has been dissipated by its indecency and irresponsibility in later years. A case in point is its incessant denunciations of Israel, to which it gave birth and legitimacy when it adopted the Palestine partition resolution in November 1947. Palestine and Israel aside, really important events, such as America’s recognition of Communist China, the ending of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis, were settled not by the United Nations but by diplomats operating outside the world organization.

To those who would say that America’s jettisoning the United Nations would mean its return to pre-Second World War isolationism, one should answer that in the age of the computer, the Internet, and the high-speed airplane, the United States can defend its interests and still be part of the world in old-fashioned ways: ambassadorial diplomacy, summit meetings, trade talks, cultural and scientific exchanges, and bilateral and multilateral treaties.

When a more realistic administration comes to Washington, one of its first moves should be starting the legal and administrative process of extracting the United States from the United Nations, and the United Nations from the United States. Surely, America can find better domestic uses for the U.N. dues it pays and for the money it loses from the expensive untaxed property along New York’s East River.

Edward Bernard Glick of Northwest Portland is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University in Philadelphia.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 54; July 15, 1948

[S/902]

The Security Council,

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

1. Determines that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations;

2. Orders the Governments and authorities concerned, pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter, to desist from further military action and to this end to issue cease-fire orders to their military and paramilitary forces, to hike effect at a time to be determined by the Mediator, but in any event not later than three days from the date of the adoption of this resolution

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

4. Calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to continue to co-operate with the Mediator with a view to the maintenance of peace in Palestine in conformity with resolution 50 (1948) adopted by the Security Council on 29 May 1948;

5. Orders as a matter of special and urgent necessity an immediate and unconditional cease-fire in the City of Jerusalem to take effect twenty-four hours from the tine of the adoption of this resolution, and instructs the Truce Commission to take any necessary steps to make this cease-fire effective;

6. Instructs the Mediator to continue his efforts to bring about the demilitarization of the City of Jerusalem, without prejudice to the future political status of Jerusalem, and to assure the protection of and access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Palestine;

7. Instructs the Mediator to supervise the observance of the truce and to establish procedures for examining alleged breaches of the truce since 11 June 1948, authorizes him to deal with breaches so far as it is within his capacity to do so by appropriate local action, and requests him to keep the Security Council currently informed concerning the operation of the truce and when necessary to take appropriate action;

8. Decides that, subject to further decision by the Security Council or the General Assembly, the truce shale remain in force, in accordance with the present resolution and with resolution 50 (1948) of 29 May 1948, until a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine is reached;

9. Reiterates the appeal to the parties contained in the last paragraph of its resolution 49 (1948) of 22 May 1948 and urges upon the parties that they continue conversations with the Mediator in a spirit of conciliation and mutual concession in order that all points under dispute may h settled peacefully;

10. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Mediator with the necessary skiff and facilities to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to him under General Assembly resolution 186 (S-2) of 14 May 1948 and under this resolution;

11. Requests that the Secretary-General make appropriate arrangements to provide necessary funds to meet the obligations arising from this resolution.

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.