The United States walked away from the United Nations Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa last week, which, along with the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, demonstrates more political backbone than we've seen in a decade.

Thank you, Mr. Bush!

The walk-out brought immediate condemnation from the Islamic world and from most of the developing nations – and from Jesse Jackson, of course. Jackson claims that the United States is unwilling to face up to its responsibility to pay blacks today for the slavery in America's past. The Durban draft document included language to endorse reparations for slavery.

Canada and Israel joined the U.S. walk-out, saying that the language in the final draft of the so-called "Declaration and Plan of Action" was unacceptable. Several paragraphs condemned Israel as "racist" in its treatment of Palestinians. Of course, the United States is Israel's strongest supporter and, as such, the condemnation is targeted toward the United States as much as it is toward Israel.

Congressman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a member of the U.S. delegation, said the conference had been "hijacked" by Arab-Islamic "extremists."

Strong anti-U.S. sentiment permeates almost all U.N. conferences. Usually, it is contained – not reported – but present in the speeches, and certainly in the literature that is distributed by the hordes of NGOs (non-government organizations) that hover around these conferences.

Why this friction exists between the United States and the international community runs much deeper than the language in a single document. Much of the rest of the world sees the United States, with all its prosperity, as arrogant and uncaring, unwilling to do what the rest of the world thinks the Unites States should do.

Most of the rest of the world has no concept of freedom, as it has been experienced in the United States for two centuries. America's prosperity is the result of exploitation and thievery, according to the NGO propaganda that is fed daily to much of the world. Capitalism is seen to be simply a euphemism for theft.

What the international community really wants is for the United States to be brought under the control of an international authority in which they have a say. This is the "global village," with the United Nations serving as the village government.

The United States balked when this idea was first advanced in the League of Nations. The United States refused to participate. The United Nations, created by many of the same players who created the League of Nations, softened the language of the Charter in order to secure U.S. participation.

Three primary obstacles prevent the United Nations from having the authority it needs to control the United States: (1) permanent veto power in the U.S. Security Council; (2) independent, adequate funding; and (3) the military might to enforce its decisions.

The United States would have to agree before these obstacles could be removed. While there is rampant resentment and criticism at U.N. conferences, the level of intensity usually stays just below the threshold beyond which the United States will not tolerate. The Durban conference went beyond the threshold, and the United States walked out.

The United States should walk away from every U.N. conference, and withdraw its financial support from every U.N. institution.

Immediately.

The U.S. Congress should initiate an investigation into the system of "global governance" proposed by the United Nations and determine if the United States is willing to submit to the authority of the United Nations.

Global governance, in its totality, has not been considered by Congress. Global governance has been nibbling away at our national sovereignty through individual treaties, agreements and policy documents. Conference by conference, compromise by compromise, the United States has already yielded far more sovereignty to the United Nations than the U.S. Constitution allows. The United States – through its elected representatives – should demand a complete review and re-evaluation of the U.S.-U.N. relationship.

Globalization is inevitable. The question is: Should the United States lead the world to individual freedom and free markets, or should it allow the rest of the world to manage our markets, and limit our freedom?

Every U.N. conference since the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio, has produced, at least, a "Declaration and Plan of Action," or some kind of international treaty. Each of these documents cedes a little more sovereignty to the United Nations. The United States has agreed to all of these documents.

President Bush walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, and he has now walked away from the "poison" that infected the Durban conference. It's a good start, but only a start.

It is clear to U.N. watchers, that the international community is pushing hard to get its "global governance" agenda in place in time to celebrate next year, the 10th anniversary of the Rio conference. The International Criminal Court is expected to be in force by then, as is the Kyoto Protocol. These new treaties, and the anticipated adoption of the Earth Charter, are all major steps toward the realization of the global-governance agenda. These are to be among the reasons for the U.N. celebration in Johannesburg, South Africa next year.

This fiasco in Durban, together with the removal of the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, combined with the world's reaction to the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, should be enough to make Congress question the U.S. role in the United Nations system. Only a thorough review, U.N. agency by U.N. agency, will provide the evidence necessary to determine whether or not U.S. participation is beneficial.

U.N. officials cannot be compelled to appear before Congress, but should they refuse, the message would be louder than any words they might bring. The Human Rights Commission, sponsors of the Durban conference, would be an enlightening beginning point, but other U.N. agencies are far more important. The "Financing for Development" conference scheduled for Monterrey, Mexico next March would be a more productive target.

The Declaration and Plan of Action from this conference is envisioned to be the roadmap to "independent, adequate funding" for the United Nations, one of the three major obstacles still blocking global governance.

So far, there has been no indication from the Bush White House that the administration will abandon this conference. The Congress should step in and investigate the what, why, how and who of this upcoming event, and when the ultimate objective is made clear, Congress should shut off the valve, stopping all money flows to this conference, and every other U.N. agency.

Related offer:

Gary DeMar's "God and Government," a three-volume resource crammed with historical facts about America's biblical roots, is available in WorldNetDaily's online store.