Saturday, August 05, 2006

The UNdemocratic United Nations

Finally a sane voice in the Sea of increasingly political correct and leftwing dominated media, that dares to break through the taboo of criticizing the U.N. and show that they have an anti-democratic political agenda. The U.N. myth is just that a myth, that unfortunately it is still convenient to believe in, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the U.N. have been hi-jacked on almost every level by corrupt, and anti-democratic forces, being a testament to the increasingly global democratic deficit. Perhaps it is time for truly democratic countries to pull the plug on the United Nations farce and walk out. Like the predecessor of the U.N. – The League of Nations failed to fulfil its purpose and was dismantled, it seems increasingly clear that the U.N. is racing down towards the same fate. The League of Nations displayed their impotence in the Manchurian question in the 1930s, the U.N. is displaying their impotence, corruption and ineptitude to take a stand for their own ideals all over the place, and like the League of Nations failed on the brink of a major global armed conflict, so it seems like the U.N. is doing the same following in the footsteps of their predecessor!

Whatever the successor of the U.N., if any is uncertain, but if there needs to be a super-national body we in the west must demand that it will be a more democratic and open organization!

Speech without mandate
By Hans Hauge, Jyllands-Posten, August 5, 2006
Translation: Zonka

[Undemocratic UN]
The U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland was visiting Beirut last week. He then stated that Israel was violating international humanitarian laws. He then demanded that Israel should stop the bombing. Can he do that?

The problem is that Jan Egeland isn't democratic elected by anyone. The "International Community", that he comes from is a community without a people – demos. Neither is he a judge, yet he judges a whole country.

Jan Egeland belongs to a Norwegian elite of socialdemocrats; his wife is a former minister for relief-aid, and he represents special interests. He is one of numerous Norwegians, who makes a career on relief-aid's illuminated by the media spotlight. I would never vote for him, if I had the opportunity, but I don't.

In the same way Kofi Annan isn't democratically elected by anyone. Those two cannot demand anybody to to anything. Their words have no legitimacy.

It is something else with Ehud Olmert or George W. Bush. They have legitimacy, which has been granted them, because they are elected in democratic elections. They can be removed in an election, however we cannot get rid of Annan and Egeland using our vote. They are undemocratic bureacrats. The UN have a gigantic democratic deficit. Apparently nobody is worried about that. Even the EU is far more democratic than the UN. If one have to decide who can decide anything on the International scene, the choice will must always fall on USA instead of UN.UN.

The United States is made up of democratic states, while United Nations is made up of a long string of dictatorships and democratic national states. A state has to be "national" to be given access to the UN, but not democratic.

Who defends human rights best? USA or UN? Well, if you ask the leftwing, who always talks about democracy, they will answer UN. In the UN Sudan and Cuba are monitoring that the Human Rights are being kept in Denmark and other places. As everyone knows, USA is a country that promotes, spread and defends Human Rights. In fact they actually invented them. And there is the difference between the UN way and the USA way, that USA have the power to spread and defend Human Rights, while the UN can only organize large luxurious conferences about them.

When USA's UN ambassador John Bolton, speaks it is the voice of authority, while Egeland and Annan only have rhetoric, and that is a form of impotence. John Bolton have been through a public and democratic process to be elected in contrast with the others.

Jan Egeland was also in Sudan, when the genocide took place there, however Sudan is simply not as interesting for the medias as Lebanon. They have to die in solitude and outside the spotlight – forgotten by churches and human rights organizations, the radical Hizb-ut-leftwing and Ole Sippel (News Correspondent – ed). Have Egeland also condemned Sudan? What is the difference between the American perception of Human Rights and the Global perception? It is that in the USA the Human Rights exist for the benefit of humans. They should be adapted to what we want. The "Human-Rights-Fundamentalists on the other side believes that humans should adapt to Human Rights. They are humanists, we are fundamentalists.

In short: Global institutions of all kinds promotes moralistic and socialistic elites completely random exercise of power, which is beyond any democratic control. Therefor any democrat should support USA.


Blogger moif said...

Agreed! 100%

06 August, 2006 16:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home