Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, for example, is appalled at Senate opponents of the United Nations’ Convention on the Law of the Sea (aptly referred to as “LOST).
And Glenn Beck’s novel about the U.N.’s nefarious aims has now made the New York Times bestsellers list.
Calm down. There are two solid reasons the United Nations and its goals are nothing to worry about.
As Human Events magazine reported, “In an address to the Center for a New American Security just before Thanksgiving, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implied that the dozens of lawmakers who oppose the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are out-of-touch ideologues, saying it was an ‘outrage’ that the controversial treaty has not yet been ratified.”
The treaty has been around since Ronald Reagan’s administration, and the U.S. has refused to ratify it.
For good reason. Human Events explains the treaty “would infringe on U.S. sovereignty and force the U.S. to pay royalties on deep-ocean drilling that amounted to a global tax.”
But there’s already a “law of the sea;” international agreements have long been in place, and are working just fine. And if they don’t, we have many recourses; one of them is called the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution itself is our best line of defense against U.N. overreach. The administration and the Senate cannot sign away our national sovereignty. The Constitution will always trump any international treaty.
Thus, the U.N. Small Arms treaty may be bad policy, but it’s largely irrelevant. It cannot grant the United Nations the power to limit our Second Amendment.
As for Beck’s book, it’s a dystopian fantasy of a world ruled by U.N. bureaucrats.
“They took Mother away today,” the book opens. “I was on my energy board when they came. They didn’t knock. They just came in, men in black uniforms. Enforcers.”
It may make for a thrilling read, but it’s not a realistic depiction of U.N. powers or aims.
And even if it did accurately portray U.N. goals, it fails to take into account U.N. realities. The United Nations is the most incompetent body in the world.
Show us a single U.N. success — Syria? Rwanda? Bosnia? Peace in the Middle East? Iran’s nuclear program?
If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a committee is only as strong as its weakest-willed member. And there’s more than enough corruption, unchecked regionalism, small-mindedness and sheer insanity among the member nations that as a committee, the U.N. couldn’t put together a picnic.
(That’s not entirely true; it provided plenty of outdoor meals in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake, but it also brought cholera.)
So don’t worry about the United Nations. Instead, ask why we’re still funding it.