What "International Law"?
November 17, 2002
By Tom Barrett, Editor@ConservativeTruth.org
I understand President Bush’s decision to give the United Nations the opportunity to do the right thing with regard to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but I do not approve of it. I believe it is a decision that he will regret in months to come.
Our President knows as well as you and I that there is no such thing as “International Law.” Communists, socialists and liberals, both within our nation and without, constantly bleat about International Law, as if saying the phrase often enough will make the concept a reality. It was supposedly in deference to “International Law” that Bush decided to bring the issue before the UN.
Before we delve into the reasons that it was a bad decision to involve the UN in the issue of disarming Iraq, let’s take a moment to discuss the fallacious concept of “International Law.” As I mentioned earlier, “International Law” is a figment of the wishful imagination of people whose interests will never coincide with those of the United States.
Laws of any type can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent of those governed. What government has ever enacted even one “International Law?” The obvious answer is “no government.” There is no international government, therefore there is not, nor can there be, any such thing as “International Law.”
The very term “international government” is an oxymoron. Only nations can govern. If there were such a body as an “international” government, it would require that all the nations incorporated within it surrender their national sovereignty. At that point, it would no longer be an “international government,” but rather a “world government.” The entire world would become one nation.
Of course we have had many traitors in public office in this nation who subscribe to the concept of world government and who have worked actively to engineer the surrender of our sovereignty to a world government. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are two recent examples of such “leaders.” But the fact remains that they and their socialist predecessors have failed, and there is no one-world government. Millions of Americans, myself among them, would give their lives to prevent such a travesty from ever becoming a reality. And unless it does, there can be no “International Law.”
Then why has our president allowed the UN to have any say in defense of out nation? To understand why his advisors have persuaded him to make this poor decision, we need to understand a few facts.
* The League of Nations was formed on November 15, 1920 to be an “international alliance for the preservation of peace.” The League had some minor accomplishments, but preserving peace was not among them. The main thing to remember for the purpose of our discussion was the League of Nations never attempted to constitute itself as any type of international government.
* On October 24, 1945 (a day that shall live in infamy), a new organization known as the United Nations was created. Shortly thereafter (on April 8, 1946) the League of Nations was dissolved. The stated mission of the United Nations is to “maintain world peace, develop good relations between countries, promote cooperation in solving the world’s problems, and encourage respect for human rights.” Again, the United Nations does not claim to be a world government.
* The goal of many political and financial figures is to gradually force every nation to cede control of their destiny to the United Nations. Unlike many, I do not believe this is some sort of conspiracy. To the contrary, many “leaders” and “intellectuals” in our nation, including the aforementioned traitors Clinton and Gore, Henry Kissinger, and thousands of college professors have been very clear in both their writings and speeches about their support for the concept of a one-world government.
* The only documents that even come close to the concept of “International Law” are treaties between nations. Since treaties are only as good as the good will of the nations that enter into them and since there is no recognized international body with the power to enforce treaties, they certainly do not deserve the description of “International Laws.”
If all this is true (and it is; basic research will prove all the facts mentioned above), why had our president bowed to the pressure to submit to “International Law” by deferring to the United Nations when our national security is at stake? After all, Bush has described the UN as an irrelevant debating society.
The fact is that he has not given the UN any power over our ultimate decision to deal with Iraq in the way we see fit. He has given in to pressure from spineless politicians who are afraid to make any move without the support of the “International Community.” (By the way, the last time we went after Saddam, we had a “coalition” of many nations, but I’m sure you remember who did all the heavy lifting. And don’t forget that it was the “coalition” that prevented us from completing the job of ousting Saddam eleven years ago.)
Think of it this way. You’re on the playground with your sixth grade class, and you see a bully beating up on a skinny third-grader. Would you pull the bully off of the little kid, and perhaps pop him a few times to make sure he didn’t do it again? Or would you call a class meeting to get support for your decision to do what you knew you should do anyway?
We have hundreds of liberal politicians (and some who call themselves conservatives) who do not have the courage of their convictions. Or perhaps they simply have no convictions. That would seem to be the case with the dozens of Democrats who praised President Bush’s efforts in the war on terrorism in order to get elected earlier this month. Those same politicos are now claiming that Bush has failed miserably in that effort.
In any case, the United States does not need the permission, the support, or the help of any nation, and certainly not that of the United Nations. We have the manpower and the firepower to rid the world of the most dangerous dictator on the planet today. The only thing we seem to lack is the willpower.
I mentioned that President Bush has not actually given the UN power over our decisions regarding Saddam. Regardless of the recent watered-down resolution by the UN Security Council, regardless of the fact that the weapons inspectors are unlikely to find weapons that Saddam has had years to hide, we have hard intelligence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We know that he has practiced on his own people to make sure they will work when he uses them on us. Bush is not going to let that happen.
However, our president’s decision to placate the liberal left by going to the UN has cost our nation in two ways. It has set a very bad precedent which will come back to haunt us in years to come. Our nation, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself. By asking the UN permission to do what we already have the right to do, we have ceded more of our sovereignty to an organization that has become increasingly hostile to the United States in recent years.
Second, it has cost us precious time. It has given Saddam months to perfect his weapons research and development, and to hide those weapons. And it has given him more time to prepare for the inevitable war, which will undoubtedly cost the lives of more brave American service people than would otherwise have been the case.
Respectfully, that was a bad decision, Mr. President.