Surrender sovereignty? Never!

An op-ed in Monday’s, September 24, 2001, New York Times, says that “clinging to American sovereignty isn’t just wrong. It’s impossible.”

Robert Wright, author of the piece, is dead wrong.

Wright asks: “Would you rather that your office building face a remote risk of being searched by international inspectors, or the risk of being blown up?”

Neither is acceptable to Americans.

Wright contends that a U.N. inspection regime, such as that established by the Convention on Chemical Weapons, would prevent terrorist attacks because the U.N. would have the authority to “inspect” the buildings in all countries (including the U.S.), where such chemicals are manufactured.

The U.S. rejected this treaty, much to Wright’s chagrin.

Wright is not only wrong, his reasoning is wrong-headed.

• Item: The U.N. “inspected” Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capacity. Mr. Wright may be willing to accept the result, but the rest of the world has no assurance that Saddam has complied with the no-production agreement he made to conclude the Gulf War.

• Item: Any U.N. inspection team is quite likely to consist of people who are either sympathetic to, or members of the terrorist networks that target the U.S.

• Item: There is no constitutional authority for our federal government to submit to any foreign or international regime. Acquiescence to Wright’s reasoning would be unconstitutional, at best, and at worst, treasonous.

His suggestion that submission to U.N. authority might somehow prevent terrorist attacks is ludicrous. It would enhance the possibility of attacks, by giving the U.N. the authority to provide unrestricted access to the United States for international operatives – whether or not they meet the U.S. requirements for entry. Never!

Finally, Wright says “… the question isn’t whether to surrender national sovereignty. The question is how – carefully and systematically, or chaotically and catastrophically?”

The events on September 11 were not a surrender of national sovereignty, they were an attack upon it. Wright would have us relinquish our right to defend our sovereignty by giving the U.N. the responsibility to defend our country. Never!

The United States has the right, the responsibility and the power to defend our sovereignty, and our citizens. It must do so. There is nothing that the U.N. can do, that the United States cannot do better. We have no responsibility to even consult the U.N. Article 51 clearly recognizes our right to take “individual or collective self-defense” action. By ratifying the U.N. Charter, we agreed only to report the measures we take. Our nation was attacked and we must respond.

Our response must be an American response – not a U.N. response. The Bush administration is correct in asking all nations to step up and declare whether they are with us, or against us. Those nations that choose to continue to support terrorism must be considered as “hostile” nations.

The United States does not need the U.N., despite Mr. Wright’s suggestion to the contrary. The U.N. is an obstacle to the United States’ efforts to advance the principles of freedom. The U.N. has no interest in advancing freedom or free markets – their interest is in advancing U.N. power and control.

It is telling that two weeks after the horrendous attacks on New York and Washington, there has been no public condemnation of the terrorists by the U.N. Earlier this month, meeting in Durban, South Africa, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights – led by many of the same nations that harbor terrorists – promoted a resolution condemning Israel. These are the people to whom Mr. Wright would have the U.S. relinquish its sovereignty.

All the opinion polls since the September 11 events suggest that Americans cherish their sovereignty, and want an American response. Americans overwhelmingly support the response so far, as outlined by the Bush administration. Perhaps this American response will reveal the bias, and impotence of the U.N., and cause the American people to seriously question the wisdom of our continued support of this top-heavy, over-reaching, global-governance octopus.

Mr. Wright is not alone in his desire to see the U.S. submit to the global governance of the United Nations. The U.N. Association boasts hundreds of thousands of members who are continually bombarded with Wright-like propaganda. Thousands of non-government organizations – accredited by the United Nations – are provided extensive funding through grants, especially for “education” and “building public awareness” – both of which are euphemisms for U.N. propaganda.

The United States could have a far more positive impact on the world if it were not entangled in this pot of political stew called the United Nations. We’re spending billions of dollars every year on this system of international organizations, many of which share the “hate America and Israel” view revealed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Durban.

Without the United States, the U.N. would wither – as did the League of Nations – and the U.S. could use its resources to promote the principles of freedom and free trade, without all the encumbrances imposed by the U.N. bureaucracy.

Mr. Wright’s suggestion that the U.S. must surrender its sovereignty is as out of place as Alger Hiss in the U.S. State Department. Surrender our national sovereignty to the U.N.? Never!

---

Related offer:

The May edition of WND’s WorldNet Magazine, now called Whistleblower, titled “GLOBAL LOAN SHARKS: How the IMF and World Bank debase nations, steal wealth and undermine sovereignty,” exposes the multinational institutions’ real agenda perhaps like never before.