|
WASHINGTON - Threats to U.S. security
and sovereignty in recent years have spawned a widening
grassroots movement to get the United States out of the
United Nations and the United Nations out of the United
States. The effort has gained a political respectability
it did not always enjoy. A "people's rebellion"
against internationalist elites is coming straight from
Heartland America.
Once relegated to the outer fringes of
the conservative movement, skepticism of and hostility
to the U.N. in recent years are the result of several
factors, not the least of which is concern for safety
in an increasingly dangerous world. The war against terror
in general, and against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in particular,
have caused debate over America's once assumed right to
defend itself without seeking "permission" from
the so-called "international community." President
Bush has been ridiculed in the halls of the United Nations
for taking seriously his No. 1 constitutional duty: to
protect Americans from harm. Sept. 11 was the wake-up
call that brought Americans face to face with the prospect
of personal danger. They do not take kindly to U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan and others who challenge our right
to self-defense.
Legislatures in some of the same Rocky
Mountain states that rebelled against the excesses of
the elitist "environmental" movement a quarter
of a century ago are now leading the anti-U.N. charge.
The Utah House of Representatives last month approved
a resolution urging Congress to withdraw the U.S. from
the United Nations. The measure had been proposed a year
ago, but was put on hold while President Bush was unsuccessfully
seeking U.N. backing for an invasion of Iraq. Now in 2004,
the Utah House voted 42-33 in favor of "freeing the
nation from a large financial burden and retaining the
nation's sovereignty to decide what is best for the nation
and determine what steps it considers appropriate as the
leader of the free world in full control of its armed
forces and destiny."
The measure has divided the top leadership
of the Republican majority in the Utah House. House Speaker
Marty Stephens, who is also a gubernatorial candidate
in the Beehive State, voted with the majority, reflecting
a popular concern among some conservatives over such issues
as "world government" and a global tax. On the
other hand, House Majority Leader Greg Curtis voted against
the measure, saying, "I don't want it to be said,
'Well, he must not be a conservative, he must not be a
true Republican if he doesn't support this.'" That
Curtis would be defensive about his GOP credentials because
of this issue reflects the political reality that the
world organization's approval among the general public,
particularly among Republican voters in the 2000 "red
states," has taken a dive in recent years. The tarnished
reputation of the U.N. persists despite the left-tilting
establishment's best efforts to define the issue as something
that is "settled" and beyond the boundaries
of reasonable debate. But the ranks of the skeptics are
growing. Similar anti-U.N. efforts are under way in the
legislatures of neighboring states Idaho and Arizona.
On Jan. 17, the chief congressional proponent
of the anti-U.N. effort, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, visited
Salt Lake City to outline his case for America's sovereign
right to assert its best interests over whatever objections
United Nations might have. Last year, Paul's campaign
to free the U.S. of U.N. constraints made a significant
leap forward in Congress, though it still lost by a comfortable
margin. In contrast to previous up or down votes on the
issue that netted fewer than 40 supporters, a recorded
vote on this issue on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
on July 22, 2003 garnered 145 votes: 141 Republicans and
four Democrats. Rep. Paul sees that as progress. The final
vote against the proposal was 279-145. But just as the
left has attained ultimate victories by revisiting its
issues year after year, so too does the Texas lawmaker
intend to apply the same strategy here. Paul's spokesman
Jeff Deist told NewsMax.com that timing was of the utmost
significance in this latest vote. The proposal picked
up support because of resentment over the anti-U.S. rhetoric
in the U.N. General Assembly, which intensified with the
run-up to the war with Iraq. Also, unlike previous measures,
this vote, on an amendment to an appropriations bill,
merely called on the U.S. to cease all funding for the
United Nations. It stopped short of calling for outright
withdrawal. The idea is to advance the cause in steps.
Included among those favoring Paul's amendment
were such heavy hitters as House Majority leader Tom DeLay,
R-Texas; House International Relations Committee Chairman
Henry Hyde, R-Ill.; and Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif.,
best known for his bipartisan probe several years ago
of communist China's espionage in the U.S. The resentment
against the United Nations did not develop in this country
overnight. It has been building up for years. NewsMax
has been following that every step of the way. We'll take
a closer look next in our second of two installments.
|
